KH IBOTON SINGH Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL BOARD SECURITY FORCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The legality and validity of the finding and sentence of the General Security Force Court proceeding under the Border Security Force Act, 1968, is assailed in this writ petition.

(2.) The petitioner, kh. Iboton Singh, at the relevant time was working as constable in the 95 Bn. of the Border Security Force. While he was working as such the petitioner was arrested on 15.12.84 by the Moreh Police Station in connection with FIR case No. 65(l2)/84 of Moreh Police Station under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that the petitioner had stabbed No. 75002532 Constable Gharbaran Ram of 95 Bn. of the Border Security Force who succumbed to his injuries. Coy Comdr. Moreh Coy., Shri EB Rana lodged the MR and the Moreh Police Station investigated the case. The Border Security Force Authority exercised its discretion under Section 80 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 (for short 'BSF Act') and accordingly decided that the proceeding be instituted before (he General Security Force Court and thus the General Security Force Court was convened. The petitioner was charged with committing of civil offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code alleging that the petitioner/ accused at Moreh BOP on 14.12.94 stabbed by knife No. 75002532 Constable Gharbaran Ram of the said Battalion and thereby caused death of the said constable. The prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and the defence examined none. The General Security Force Court found the petitioner/accused guilty of the offence charged and, accordingly, sentenced the petitioner/accused with imprisionment for life and also dismissed him from service vide order dated 30.7.88 which was later on confirmed by the Inspector General, Border Security Force on 4.11.88. The petitioner thereafter also moved a review application and on being rejected moved this Court by this application under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(3.) Mr. T. Nandakumar Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for. the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner was denied with fair trial at all relevant time. Mr. Nandakumar particularly submitted that Rules 48, 49, 62, 63, 118, 129 and 167 of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969, were infringed, and non-compliance with the said Rules, according to the learped counsel, vitiated the entire proceedings. Mr. Nandakumar further submitted that on the own showing of the prosecution, the petitioner was an uneducated person and was a person who could only understand Manipuri language. The proceedings not being translated in Manipuri seriously jeopardized the defence of the petitioner/accused.