New Delhi: In a sharp snub to TV channels, the Supreme Court has said that any debate or discussion on a public platform such as a television channel touching on criminal cases which are in the domain of courts would amount to direct interference in administration of criminal justice.
The court said that some matters were better left to be addressed by a court of law and channels should not play up any "concluding piece of evidence" connected with crime.
The bench comprising Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and P.S. Narasimha said: “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.”
It said allowing a DVD to go into the hands of a private TV channel so that it could be played and published in a programme is nothing but dereliction of duty and direct interference in the administration of justice.
Hearing an appeal challenging the Karnataka High Court judgment commuting the death sentence awarded by a trial court to life imprisonment, the Bench acquitted the accused charged with dacoity and murder.
"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 court said.
It took offence to the statements recorded by the investigating agency on DVD played and published in a programme named ‘Putta Mutta’ by Udaya TV.
Noting that voluntary statements of the accused were recorded on DVD, and the trial court, which awarded death penalty to the accused, relied on it, the top court said that it has 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.
“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,” it held.
The bench said 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.
.png)
