Delhi High Court Quashes BSF Officer's Conviction Due to Procedural Irregularities

Failure to Examine Crucial CCTV Footage Leads to Reinstatement Without Back Wages

In a landmark judgment, the Delhi High Court has set aside the conviction and sentence of a Border Security Force (BSF) officer, Mr. Shantanu Saha, citing significant procedural irregularities in his trial. The court found that the General Security Force Court (GSFC) had violated principles of natural justice by failing to examine critical primary evidence, including CCTV footage, despite its availability.

The petitioner, Shantanu Saha, was initially convicted by the GSFC for allegedly committing a civil offence under Section 46 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968, corresponding to using criminal force intending to outrage a woman's modesty, punishable under Section 354 of the IPC. The incidents were said to have occurred in January 2021 and involved a female officer in the same battalion.

Despite the availability of CCTV footage that could have provided definitive evidence of the alleged incidents, the footage was neither produced nor examined during the GSFC proceedings. The court held that this omission constituted a procedural irregularity and deprived Mr. Saha of an effective defense, leading to a miscarriage of justice.

The bench comprising Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla emphasized the importance of fair play and impartiality in trials, especially in cases involving serious allegations such as sexual harassment within the armed forces. The court noted that while the statement of a complainant can be sufficient for conviction if credible, the absence of primary evidence like CCTV footage, particularly when requested by the accused, undermines the fairness of the proceedings.

In its judgment, the court highlighted the statutory rights of the accused under the BSF Act and Rules, which include the right to summon witnesses and primary evidence for defense. The failure to ensure the examination of crucial evidence like CCTV footage was seen as a violation of these rights.

The court ordered the reinstatement of Mr. Saha to his position without back wages or benefits for the intervening period. This decision underscores the judiciary's role in ensuring procedural fairness and upholding the rights of individuals, even in specialized trials such as those conducted by security force courts.

Bottom Line:

Border Security Force Act, 1968 - GSFC proceedings - Violation of principles of fair trial due to failure to examine primary evidence, including CCTV footage, despite its availability, leading to procedural irregularities and deprivation of the accused's right to an effective defense.

Statutory provision(s): Border Security Force Act, 1968 Sections 113, 117(1), 117(2), 89(1); Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Sections 114, 165; BSF Rules 59(1), 63, 64; Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Shantanu Saha v. Union of India, (Delhi)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2817491