Criminal Trial Is Voyage To Truth, Conviction Not The Objective: Karnataka HC Allows Murder Accused To Show Media Interviews At Trial To Confront Witness

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna while allowing the petition filed by Aravinda Reddy said “The order of the concerned Court holding that it would not be a previous statement and the DVD/DVR/video footage cannot be permitted to be played, is rendered unsustainable. If it leads to discovery of truth and the discovery of truth leads to innocence of the accused, it should be permitted to come on record.”

The petitioner was arrayed as accused along with other accused and charged for the offences punishable Sections 114, 143, 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 324, 447, 109 and 120B of the IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) of the SC & ST 3 (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.

During the trial before the court, the accused moved the application seeking to play the video footage claiming that it was the contention of the prosecution that the husband of the complainant was brought dead to the hospital. However, the video footage, according to the petitioner, had something different which would completely demolish the case of the prosecution, as he was not brought dead.

The complaint opposed the plea saying some statements given by the persons around the scene of crime to the media cannot mean that they would become prior statements of any of the witnesses. 

It was stated that those statements cannot be made use of by the accused to confront the prosecution witness and only those prior statements and the statement of witnesses appended to the charge sheet or the supplementary charge sheet would be made available to the accused.

Findings:

The bench on going through the records said that PW-2 to PW-4 (injured witnesses) were examined and they had given statements which are important to the case of the petitioner, and the said electronic statement on the pretext of it not being a previous statement cannot be denied.

It added “Acceptance or otherwise, proving or otherwise is a matter of evidence. Withholding evidence in defence would undoubtedly defeat the voyage towards discovery of truth in a criminal trial.”

It noted that what the petitioner in the case at hand is asking is not a statement made after filing the charge sheet or the supplementary charge sheet. 

The court stated that the accused was asking for a statement on the day of the crime which was given to the press in the presence of Police.

The court observed “It is a settled principle that every criminal trial is a journey or a voyage towards discovery of truth, as conviction alone is not the object of criminal trial. It is to reach the truth and it is its object. It is an undeniable fact that a fair investigation followed by a fair trial is the very heart and soul of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, a right to life. It is also not the duty of the prosecution to merely secure conviction of the accused at all costs.”

Then it held “Certain facts, documents or evidence may not be produced by the prosecution and placed along with the charge sheet or a supplementary charge sheet. But, there would be certain evidence that would become necessary for the defence to prove its innocence. This is one such case.”

Allowing the petition the court directed the trial court to permit the playing of the video footage for confronting the witness.

"This by no means would be a ruse to the accused to drag on the proceedings. The examination and cross-examination on the basis of the video footage should be completed on a solitary day that the concerned Court would fix,” it concluded.

Appearance: Advocate K B K Swamy for Petitioner.

HCGP Thejesh P, FOR R-1.

Advocate S.R Sreeprasad FOR R-2. Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 286

Case Title: Aravinda Reddy AND State of Karnataka & ANR

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.12056 OF 2022