The Supreme Court has shown concern over the affect of Media Trials on Criminal Trials and stated that TV Debates touching upon relevant evidences and other material is meddling in the process of administration of justice.
The Division Bench comprising of Justice UU Lalit and ustice P S Narasimha observed that all matters relating to the crime and whether a particular thing happens to be a conclusive piece of evidence must be dealt with by a Court of Law and not through a TV channel.
"If at all there was a voluntary statement, the matter would be dealt with by the Court of Law. The public platform is not a place for such debate or proof of what otherwise is the exclusive domain and function of Courts of law. Any such debate or discussion touching upon matters which are in the domain of Courts would amount to direct interference in administration of Criminal Justice."
The appeal herein was filed by four accused who were convicted under Section 394 IPC. While three of them were acquitted, the appellant was convicted for offences punishable under Section 396 read with Section 34 of the IPC. By a subsequent order of punishment, the Trial Court imposed death sentence upon all the appellants for the offence committed by them. In the appeal filed, the High Court did not find sufficient reasons to affirm the death sentence but found the appellant guilty of having committed the alleged offences and sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment.
In the case, the Voluntary Statements of the appellants were recorded by the Investigating Officer on a DVD which became key evidence. These were later played and published in a program named “Sutta Mutta” by Udaya TV.
The Court at the outset noted that they have repeatedly found a tendency on part of the Prosecuting Agency in getting the entire statement recorded rather than only that part of the statement which leads to the discovery of facts. It said:
"In the process, a confession of an accused which is otherwise hit by the principles of Evidence Act finds its place on record. Such kind of statements may have a direct tendency to influence and prejudice the mind of the Court. This practice must immediately be stopped. In the present case, the Trial Court not only extracted the entire statements but also relied upon them."
The Court found it 'disturbing' that voluntary statements of the appellants were recorded on a DVD which was played in Court and formed the basis of the judgement of the Trial Court.
"Such a statement is again in the nature of a confession to a Police Officer and is completely hit by the principles of Evidence Act. If at all the accused were desirous of making confessions, the Investigating Machinery could have facilitated recording of confession by producing them before a Magistrate for appropriate action in terms of Section 164 of the Code. Any departure from that course is not acceptable and cannot be recognized and taken on record as evidence. The Trial Court erred in exhibiting those DVD statement Exh.P-25 to 28. As a matter of fact, it went further in relying upon them while concluding the matter on the issue of conviction."
The Court stressed that what further aggravated the situation is the fact that said statements on DVD recorded by the Investigating Agency were played and published in a program. It disapproved sharing of such relevant evidence with the Media for disclosure and discussion in public and noted:
"Allowing said DVD to go into the hands of a private TV channel so that it could be played and published in a program is nothing but dereliction of duty and direct interference in the administration of Justice. All matters relating to the crime and whether a particular thing happens to be a conclusive piece of evidence must be dealt with by a Court of Law and not through a TV channel."
The appellant was eventually acquitted of all the charges, however the highlight of the case remained the Top Court's stringent remarks on Media Trial and instructions to prevent Court ethics.
Case Title: VENKATESH @ CHANDRA & ANR. ETC. vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case Details: CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1476-1477 OF 2018; April 19, 2022
Coram: Justice UU Lalit and ustice P S Narasimha
Read Judgement Here:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
