16 July 2024

1. Apex Court Emphasizes Proactive Role of Trial Courts: Acquits Accused Due to Failure to Examine Key Witness

The Supreme Court while hearing an appeal in Gaurav Maini vs. The State of Haryana, made a remark on duty of a trial court to actively participate in the trial process, importance of examination of a lead witness in a trial and fatal consequence of non-examination of such witness on the prosecution’s case. The Court held that non-examination of the lead witness who provided the details about the crime would severely weaken the prosecution’s case. The Court emphasised that trial courts must ensure the testimony of crucial witnesses is obtained to reach a correct verdict.

Trial Court Must Remain Vigilant

The division bench of the Apex Court noted that fact that trial court failed to examine an important witness who first received the information of kidnapping of his grandson in the case. The bench opined that the trial court should not remain a mute spectator but shall remain vigilant and should have exercised its authority under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. to summon and examine the lead witness, as his testimony was crucial for a fair resolution of the case. Section 165 of the Evidence Act allows the judge to question any witness or party, in any form, at any time, regarding any relevant or irrelevant fact, and to order the production of any document or item.

The Court stressed on the proactive role that a trial court must take during legal proceedings. By reading Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 165 of the Evidence Act together, it becomes evident that the trial court must not remain a passive observer. Instead, it has an obligation to actively engage in the trial to ensure a fair process. This includes preventing irrelevant material from being included in the record and ensuring that all critical facts are considered, even if the involved parties fail to present them. The court must make sure that all necessary evidence is included to reach a just verdict.

Taking note that the most crucial witness, whose testimony was essential for uncovering the truth, was not presented by the prosecution, and the trial court failed to use its authority under the law to summon him, the court held such omission to be a significant flaw in the procedure. This failure led the court to draw a negative inference against the prosecution.

In summary, the Court granted the benefit of the doubt to the appellant-accused due to the prosecution and trial court’s failure to properly examine the key witness. Consequently, the appeal was upheld, and the appellants were acquitted of the kidnapping and abduction charges against them.

2. Exemption to Press/Media Persons for Sting Operation Conducted with Bonafide intent to Uncover Truth

The Kerala High Court while hearing a miscellaneous petition pertaining to sting operation by media personnel in case of Pradeep vs. State of Kerala laid down a significant ruling relating to Freedom of the Press.

Brief Facts of the Case

The petitioners in the case are two media persons from Reporter TV Channel, accused of committing offenses punishable under Sections 86 (punishment in certain cases) and 87 (power to arrest for offense under Section 86) of the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Act, 2010

They were charged for attempting to conduct a sting operation in the District Jail, Pathanamthitta, in July 2013. The allegation is that they entered the jail with permission to visit the undertrial prisoner Joppan and allegedly recorded his statement on their phone, violating jail rules. The petitioners have approached the High Court seeking to quash the final report against them for these violations.

Dealing with the said petition the Court examined whether the petitioners, being media persons, were entitled to exemption from prosecution under the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Act 2010. 

Press to Act in Good Faith

• The High Court emphasised that the press must act with good faith and vigilance when conducting sting operations, with the primary goal of promoting democracy rather than harassing or humiliating individuals.
• It was noted that sting operations by law enforcement agencies and recognised media persons should be viewed differently. However, there is no uniform rule legalizing all sting operations by these entities. Each case must be evaluated on its facts.

Opinion Held by the High Court

• Recognising the press as the “fourth estate” and a fundamental pillar of democracy, the High Court highlighted its pivotal role in holding power accountable and safeguarding democratic values. By investigating and exposing corruption, abuse of power, and misconduct, the press serves as a crucial check on authority. Through accurate and unbiased reporting, it empowers citizens with the information necessary to actively participate in democratic processes. By facilitating public debates and fostering dialogue on critical issues, the press promotes openness, good governance, and civic engagement.
• It underscored that while freedom of the press doesn’t automatically extend to all sting operations, those conducted by established media professionals warrant special consideration due to the media’s essential role in a democracy. The subordinate court conducting trial of the matter must evaluate whether the sting operation was executed with genuine intent to expose the truth and inform the public. This assessment should be made individually for each case, ensuring that the actions align with the principles of responsible journalism and public interest.
• Furthermore, it explained that if a sting operation by the press is carried out with malicious intent or aims to target and humiliate an individual, it will not receive legal protection. Conversely, if the purpose of the sting operation is to uncover the truth and inform the public, without any malice, the press should be exempt from prosecution for such activities.
• The press must ensure their actions are bona fide, aiming solely to promote democracy and discover the truth, rather than harassing or humiliating any person, group, or government entity.
• The Court also considered that the press, at times, undertakes activities that may not typically conform to legal norms, such as conducting sting operations. It made reference to judicial precedent by the Apex Court in cases like R.K. Anand and Another vs. Registrar, Delhi High Court (2009) and Rajat Prasad vs. CBI (2014), where it was established that sting operations conducted by law enforcement agencies and recognized media professionals can serve the larger public interest.

Decision of the Court

• In the present case, the Court acknowledged that the petitioners, driven by enthusiasm, attempted to use their mobile phones in prison to gather information from a witness involved in a sensational case.
• However, prison officers prevented them from recording any information. The Court reasoned that since the intention of the petitioners was solely to gather news information and not to deliberately break the law, there was no justification to pursue prosecution against them.
• Consequently, following the above discussed reasoning, the Court decided to quash all legal proceedings against the petitioners, recognising their actions as motivated by journalistic pursuits rather than unlawful intentions.