[Reader-list] "TV interview of accused can count as evidence"

[Ravi Sundaram]

TV interview of accused can count as evidence: SC
Dhananjay Mahapatra TOI, 29th January, 2007

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/NEWS/India/TV_interview_of_accused_can_count_as_evidence_SC/articleshow/1501784.cms



NEW DELHI: Supreme Court has added a new, and significant, chapter to 
the conservative criminal jurisprudence and given a role to the media 
in criminal trials by ruling that interviews given by an accused to 
TV channels could be considered evidence by courts.

The country's criminal jurisprudence, which presumes innocence in 
favour of the accused and goes by the principle that a 100 guilty 
could escape the clutches of law but not a single innocent should be 
punished, had not recognised role of media in a trial.

In this light, the apex court's January 22 order that the trial court 
could consider admissibility of statements given by an accused to 
media, is not only a significant leap in law but also a trend-setter. 
This has wide implications for sting operations, the recent 
"entrapment" of MPs seeking bribes for local area development 
contracts being a case in point, as such interviews may become key 
evidence in corruption trials. Also, those accused who seek to use 
these interviews to influence investigation need to watch out.

The televised confession of Ravinder Pradhan to the murder of Meerut 
lecturer Kavita could now have a different connotation. The process 
began right at the trial court stage in Gujarat. In a murder incident 
of 2000, the accused Sajidbeg Asifbeg Mirza was allegedly beaten up 
by police during his custodial interrogation. When Mirza was admitted 
to a hospital in Surat, a local TV channel interviewed him.

As what he said in the interview, being relevant to prove his guilt, 
the prosecution moved trial court requesting it to summon the 
videographer as witness to prove contents of the interview.

The accused and his counsel objected saying extra-judicial 
confessions before media cannot be cited as evidence during the trial 
in a criminal case. The trial court did not agree with this plea and 
summoned the videographer to depose before it as a witness.

The accused moved Gujarat High Court to appeal the summoning order 
and cited the SC judgment in the Parliament attack case, which 
narrated that Ram Jethmalani, appearing for SAR Geelani, had cited a 
TV interview given by Mohammed Afzal to a TV channel purportedly 
confessing to his guilt but absolving Geelani.

The HC said the apex court, in the Parliament attack case, had 
rejected the admissibility of Afzal's statement to the TV channel as 
it became apparent that the interview was arranged by the police and 
recorded in their presence.

The HC, agreeing with the trial court, held that the SC has not laid 
down any principle about admissibility of confessional statement by 
an accused to media, if it were given suo-motu and without any 
pressure from the police. Mirza carried his appeal to the Supreme 
Court. A Bench comprising Justices Arijit Pasayat and SH Kapadia 
dismissed Mirza's petition saying, "There is no merit in it."

However, it said,"It goes without saying that the relevance and 
admissibility of the statement, if any, given by the accused before 
the mediapersons shall be considered at the appropriate state in the trial."

Once the "shall" word is used in the direction, then the trial court 
will definitely consider the admissibility.