It is a matter of grave concern that none other than the Kerala High Court in a recent, remarkable and righteous decision in Jitesh vs. State of Kerala in Crl. Appeal No. 567 of 2014 and connected cases delivered on August 12, 2020 has expressed its serious concerns about the police officers conducting press meetings in respect of criminal investigations in 'sensational cases'. The Kerala High Court minced no words to convey in simple and straight language that the police officers must restrain themselves from rushing to media to reveal details about the ongoing criminal investigations and must always remember that a criminal case has to be finally decided in a court of law. Very rightly so!

To start with, Justice A Hariprasad who authored this latest, landmark and extremely laudable judgment for himself and Justice N Anil Kumar of Kerala High Court sets the ball rolling by first and foremost observing in para 1 that:
This batch of criminal appeals and a revision petition arise out of the judgment in S.C. No. 550 of 2013 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-VI, Thiruvananthapuram. Six accused persons were charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 396, 302, 201, 328, 465 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, IPC).

After examining 72 witnesses on the prosecution side and eight witnesses on the defence side and also after considering 244 documents exhibited for the prosecution, 25 documents for the defence, XI series court exhibits and 143 material objects, the trial court came to a conclusion that the accused 1 to 5 are guilty of criminal conspiracy for committing murder, dacoity, forgery, using as genuine a forged document which is known to be forged, administering a stupefying drug on the deceased with intent to cause hurt and causing disappearance of evidence of the offence committed. Apart from the above, they found to have committed grave offences of murder and dacoity pursuant to the conspiracy hatched. Imprisonment for life, other sentences for different terms and fine have been imposed on them. 6th accused was found to be not guilty of any of the offences alleged by the prosecution and he is acquitted under Section 235(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, Cr.P.C.).

While elaborating further, it is then pointed in para 2 that, For the sake of convenience, the appellants, who challenged the conviction and sentence, are described hereunder in their respective ranks before the trial court. 1st accused preferred Crl. Appeal No. 567 of 2014 assailing the conviction and sentence. 2nd accused filed Crl. Appeal No. 1121 of 2015 disputing correctness of his conviction and sentence.

Similarly, Crl. Appeal No. 576 of 2014 is filed by the 3rd accused, Crl. Appeal No. 665 of 2014 is filed by the 4th accused and Crl. Appeal No. 800 of 2014 is filed by the 5th accused. Crl. Appeal No. 129 of 2016 is filed by the State, challenging correctness of the acquittal of 6th accused. For the same purpose, another appeal, bearing number Crl. Appeal (V) No. 21 of 2019, has been filed by a lady, who was examined as PW2 in the trial and who claimed to be the wife of deceased Harihara Varma (in short Varma, hereafter). She filed the appeal under proviso to Section 372 read with Section 2(wa) of Cr.P.C. Crl. Appeal No. 609 of 2016 is filed under Section 454(1) Cr.P.C. by a third party claiming to be the wife of deceased Varma. She is aggrieved by the direction in the trial court's judgment to handover movable properties to PW2, including the precious stones, belonged to Varma on a finding that she is his legally wedded wife.

Be it noted, it is then enunciated in para 268 that:
In order to fully appreciate gamut of the defence case, we may also refer to other evidence adduced on the defence side. DW3 Ramesh Kumar was news editor, Mathrubhoomi Daily, Thiruvananthapuram, DW7 G. Govind was chief reporter, Malayala Manorama, Thiruvananthapuram Bureau and DW8 Arunkumar K. was senior reporter, Asianet news. On going through their testimonies, we see that the defence counsel wanted to establish that distorted news items about the incident appeared in the print and electronic media and they were published without properly verifying the truth. Mathrubhoomi and Malayala Manorama News Papers are produced and marked on the defence side to show that news relating to death of Harihara Varma was published on 25.12.2012. DWs 3 and 7 deposed that their local reporters furnished information about the incident. DW8 also deposed that through Asianet News, this news item was telecast. It has come out in evidence that there was a press meeting conducted by police officers on 05.01.2013 after arresting accused 1 to 5. DW6 Hemachandran was the Additional Director General of Police (ADGP), South Zone and he conducted the press briefing. DW6 admitted in chief-examination that he hold a press meeting in the City Police Commissioner's Office although he did not remember the date.

DW6 testified that the press meeting was after taking some of the accused persons into custody. DW6 further deposed that the accused were not exhibited in the press briefing. Defence case is that print and electronic media published news items with ornamentations and embellishments to the accused's prejudice. To substantiate this contention, many questions were put to the aforementioned witnesses. When we go through the testimony of DW6, we do not get a definite answer to the question why such a press meeting was conducted? Notwithstanding that, we find no prejudice or disadvantage caused to the accused by holding a press meeting.

More damningly, the Bench then pulls back no punches in holding in para 269 that, We have serious reservations about police officers conducting press meetings in respect of criminal investigations, which they and media consider to be sensational. In our view, on many occasions holding press meetings would spoil the quality of evidence collected during the investigation. It is our considered opinion, no police officer conducting investigation into a crime shall be authorised to divulge the facts ascertained during investigation through media. They should remember that a criminal case has to be finally decided in a court of law.

Police officers should refrain from airing their personal views in respect of a case under investigation. They are not expected to reveal before media the facts ascertained in the course of investigation by questioning material witnesses or confession made by the accused. It is a common knowledge that recently the practise of police officers rushing to media with speculative informations about on going investigations is on the increase.

As a corollary, it is then also made clear in para 270 that, Section 31(3) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 specifically says that no person in custody shall be paraded or allowed to be photographed and no press conference shall be conducted without permission of the State Police Chief for the purpose of publishing the same in newspaper or in any visual media. State Police Chief certainly cannot grant such a permission mechanically and for a mere asking. He is bound to exercise his discretion judiciously before granting permission. It is the complaint of the accused in this case that all such precautionary measures have been flouted here.

To put things in perspective, it is then brought out in para 271 that:
We may refer to certain executive directions issued by the Director General of Police (DGP) from time to time. Executive directive No. 13/2004 dated 26.03.2004 issued from Police Headquarters, Thiruvananthapuram by the DGP, considering the provisions in Rules 6 and 9 of All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968 and Rules 62 and 63 of Kerala Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1960, would show that it was noticed that many officers of and above the rank of Superintendent of Police and State Service Police Officers have fallen into the habit of airing their personal views through media. Expressing anguish over their conduct, the executive directive was issued.

On a different note, it is however, then conceded in para 272 that: Circular No. 9/2008 issued by the DGP on 31.12.2008 permits interaction with media where considerations of public safety or bolstering public confidence in security arrangements or getting co-operation from the public in a policing task, which is to be carried out with the support of the public, or a matter in which public participation is required are involved.

While again reverting back to the earlier strict position of not leaking information to the media, it is stated in para 273 that, Next circular is Circular No. 15/2010 dated 14.03.2010 which again depreciates divulging details of an on going investigation and intelligent inputs through media. Tendency to give piecemeal informations on a daily basis on the progress of investigation is frowned upon. Instead, it is suggested, a press release in the form of a statement should be given on completion of the investigation, if the same is actually warranted by the circumstances, that too after getting permission from competent authority and without discussing the evidence. Spirit of this circular is laudable.

Furthermore, it is then brought out in para 274 that, Circular No. 24/2014 cautioned police officers that no press conference shall be conducted without permission of the State Police Chief for the purpose of publishing the same in the newspaper or in any visual media.

Going ahead, para 275 then envisages that:
Latest executive directive No. 29/2018 is dated 24.09.2018. It is mentioned inter alia that no officer than a designated officer shall have the authority to speak about cases under investigation. If any police officer of any rank is invited or wishes to participate in a show or discussion or programme on any media platform, he should get permission of the State Police Chief by routing a request through proper channel. No doubt, now a days all directives in these circulars are often flouted with impunity.

As it turned out, while citing the relevant case laws, it is then mentioned in para 276 that, We may now refer to some of the pronouncements by the Apex Court in this regard. In Rajendran Chingaravelu v. R.K. Mishra ((2010) 1 SCC 457). The Supreme Court held thus:

But the appellant's grievance in regard to media being informed about the incident even before completion of investigation, is justified. There is a growing tendency among investigating officers (either police or other departments) to inform the media, even before the completion of investigation, that they have caught a criminal or an offence. Such crude attempts to claim credit for imaginary investigational breakthroughs should be curbed. Even where a suspect surrenders or a person required for questioning voluntarily appears, it is not uncommon for the investigating officers to represent to the media that the person was arrested with much effort after considerable investigation or a chase. Similarly, when someone voluntarily declares the money he is carrying, media is informed that huge cash which was not declared was discovered by their vigilant investigations and thorough checking. Premature disclosures or leakage to the media in a pending investigation will not only jeopardize and impede further investigation, but many a time, allow the real culprit to escape from law. Be that as it may.

While continuing in the same vein, it is then pointed out in para 277 that:
A bench consisting of three learned Judges in Romila Thapar and others v. Union of India and others (AIR 2018 SC 4683) held thus:

..............The use of the electronic media by the investigating arm of the State to influence public opinion during the pendency of an investigation subverts the fairness of the investigation. The police are not adjudicators nor do they pronounce upon guilt. In the present case, police briefings to the media have become a source of manipulating public opinion by besmirching the reputations of individuals involved in the process of investigation. What follows is unfortunately a trial by the media. That the police should lend themselves to this process is matter of grave concern.

What cannot be overlooked and whose significance is linked directly with this case is what is then stated further in this same para 277 that, However, in this case we have already found that the material witnesses examined on the prosecution side clearly identified the accused not based on any media publicity. They have furnished valid reasons for developing acquaintance with and obtaining chances for meeting the accused prior to commission of the offence and afterwards.

On account of the aforementioned reasons, we find no prejudice caused to the accused by holding a press conference after arresting accused 1 to 5, especially when DW6 with responsibility deposed that the accused were not paraded before the media. The Kerala High Court thus upheld conviction of four out of five accused for murder by the trial court. The sentence of life imprisonment has also been confirmed.

In conclusion, the Kerala High Court in this particular case has minced no words to convey in simple and straight language that the police should always desist from the most reprehensible tendency to give piecemeal informations on a daily basis just to garner sensationalism in the media as also among the people. This cannot be justified under any circumstances but what an unpalatable truth that this is exactly what we witness for ourselves also in most of the cases! Just a statement should be given and that too where it is necessary and here again after obtaining permission from the competent authority and no evidence should be discussed at all here.

Also, only the designated officer should speak about cases under investigations. Finally, as stated above, the police are not adjudicators nor do they pronounce upon guilt. They must be very cautious and careful while addressing media and should follow all the rules and refrain under all circumstances to indulge from over stating or creating sensationalism! No doubt, only then will the law be able to follow its course and this alone can enhance the sagging reputation of the police in the eyes of the people and media too must refrain from playing to the gallery!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.