TV debates on criminal cases pending in courts amount to interference with administration of justice: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday held that any debate or discussion on a public platform such as a television (TV) channel touching on criminal cases which are in the domain of courts would amount to direct interference in administration of criminal justice [Venkatesh @ Chandra v State of Karnataka]..- The Supreme Court was hearing an appeal arising from a judgment of the Karnataka High Court commuting death penalty imposed by the trial court to life imprisonment;- The appellants were accused of committing dacoity with murder;- The Court found three “disturbing features” about the case;- Firstly, tendency of recording a statement in a way that a confession otherwise hit by the principles of Evidence Act found its place on record. Secondly, evidence being discussed on television. Thirdly, not enough details of the appellants’ involvement in other matters;- The Court also found that a chain of circumstances had not been established by the prosecution;- Thus, the appellants were acquitted..A Bench of Justices UU Lalit and PS Narasimha made the observation while hearing an appeal arising from a judgment of the Karnataka High Court sentencing the appellants to life imprisonment for the crime of dacoity with murder.The Karnataka High Court passed the judgment while altering the trial court’s sentence imposing death penalty on the appellants..The Supreme Court observed that they found some features of the case to be quite disturbing and thus, the same needed to be noted and deliberated upon. One such feature was that the voluntary statements of the appellants were recorded on DVD later played for the trial court which formed a basis for the final judgment. However, it was found that the statement was in the nature of a confession to a police officer and was completely hit by the principles of Evidence Act..What further aggravated the situation according to the Court was that statements on DVD were played and published on a program named “Putta Mutta” by Udaya TV.“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”, the Supreme Court said.It underscored that all matters relating to a crime and whether a piece of evidence was conclusive needed to be dealt with by a Court and not a TV channel.“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,” the Bench opined..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.Supreme Court.The Bench on hearing the parties also pointed out a tendency on the part of the prosecuting agencies in getting the entire statement recorded, instead of confining it to the part which leads to the discovery of facts.It was stated that this practice needed to be stopped immediately since the confession of an accused which would otherwise be hit by the principles of Evidence Act found its place on record in the process.“Such kind of statements may have a direct tendency to influence and prejudice the mind of the Court… In the present case, the trial court not only extracted the entire statements but also relied upon them,” the Court noted. .The final “disturbing feature” highlighted by the apex court was that a mere chart was taken to be proof of the activities of a gang to which the appellants allegedly belonged.It was noted that if the prosecution wanted the Court to take note of other matters in which accused were involved, the concerned chargesheets along with sufficient details including the judgments or orders of conviction should have been produced.“A mere chart cannot be taken as proof of the involvement of the accused in other crimes either at the stage of conviction or sentence,” the Court made it clear. The Court took note of the fact that such involvement was recorded as one of the reasons for the death sentence awarded by the trial court. It was stressed that such a practice could never be approved..Dealing with the merits of the case, the Bench found that it was based on circumstantial evidence, and the prosecution had not been able to discharge the burden to such an extent that the presumption of innocence weighing in favour of the accused stood displaced..Since a consistent chain leading to a hypothesis sought to be proved by the prosecution was not formed, the appellants were acquitted.“We, therefore, grant benefit of doubt to the appellants and acquit them of the charges levelled against them. They be set at liberty unless their custody is required in any other case,” the Court ruled..[Read Judgment]