Quick Summary: Shantanu Saha, a BSF officer, was initially found guilty of bad behavior based on a complaint by a coworker. However, the Delhi High Court canceled the conviction because of mistakes in the process, especially the failure to look at the available CCTV footage.
Background of the Case
Shantanu Saha, a constable in the Border Security Force (BSF) since April 3, 1990, was accused of bad behavior involving a female officer, referred to as Ms. X, in Kolkata. The incidents supposedly happened between January and April 2021, leading to a formal complaint on June 18, 2021.
Initial Proceedings and Conviction
- First Allegations: Saha was accused of behaving inappropriately on January 12, 2021, and giving an unwanted gift on February 14, 2021.
- Investigations: The Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) found Saha guilty based on what witnesses said and recommended punishment.
- Trial and Conviction: The General Security Force Court (GSFC) initially found Saha not guilty due to lack of evidence but later changed this decision after more proceedings, sentencing him to one year in prison and removing him from his job.
Appeals and Legal Arguments
- Appeal Dismissals: Saha's appeals to higher authorities were dismissed, leading him to file a petition in the Delhi High Court.
- Defense Arguments: Saha's lawyer argued that important evidence, like CCTV footage, was not looked at, which went against Saha's right to a fair trial. They also pointed out differences in witness statements and mistakes in the process.
Court's Analysis and Decision
- Judges Involved: Justice Om Prakash Shukla and Justice C. Hari Shankar.
- Key Findings: The court found that not showing the CCTV footage and other mistakes in the process violated fair trial principles.
- Judgment Date: December 4, 2025.
- Outcome: The court canceled Saha's conviction, giving him back his job without back pay but with other benefits.
Summary of Verdict
The court decided to cancel the conviction of Shantanu Saha due to mistakes in handling the evidence, like not reviewing CCTV footage, and other errors in the process. This decision gave him back his job, emphasizing the need for fairness and thoroughness in legal proceedings.
