Kerala High Court Quashes POCSO Case Against Asianet News' Journalists, Staff Booked For Disclosing Survivor's Identity To Get High TRP

The Kerala High Court on Friday (April 11) quashed a POCSO case registered against Asianet News journalists and staff for allegedly conspiring and disclosing the identity of a minor rape survivor, in order to get high TRP.Justice A. Badharudeen observed that the alleged offences are not made out from the facts of the case. It however cautioned channels against airing allegations without hearing the other side or enquiring into the truth of the allegations. The prosecution alleged that in order to increase Television Rating Point, (TRP) of Asianet News channel and keep the channel in the top position and to increase its income, the channel's Executive Editor Sindhu S (accused no. 1) decided to make an investigative programme after having a meeting with Shajahan P, accused no. 2. This was agreed to by Noufal V the Bureau Chief of Asianet, Kannur (accused no. 3). It was alleged that the three accused decided to include the survivor in a POCSO case. The Bureau Chief contacted the father of the survivor but he refused to give an interview. However, it was alleged, that the three accused decided to go ahead with the programme for which, they had used the voice of the girl. Thereafter it was alleged that they contacted one of the staff working in the channel (accused no. 4) and showed the staff's daughter in the programme instead of the survivor. This they did with the help of video camera man (accused no. 5) and with the aid of another person (accused no. 6). The prosecution alleged that accused Nos.1 to 4 with intention of damaging reputation of the ruling Government, hatched conspiracy and forged video under the caption 'Narcotics is a dirty business' as a Roving Report and telecasted through Asianet News channel and Asianet YouTube channel. They were booked for offences under IPC Sections 120B(criminal conspiracy), 465(forgery), 419(Punishment for cheating by personation), 109(Punishment of abetment if the act abetted is committed in consequence and where no express provision is made for its punishment), 471(Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record) and 201(Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender) r/w Section 34 (common intention). Additionally Sections 83(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act and Section 23(4) of the PoCSO Act were also invoked. Section 23(4) states that no reports in the media shall disclose the identity of a child nor any report shall be made without having complete and authentic information, which may have the effect of lowering the child's reputation or infringing upon their privacy; and any contravention of the same can be punished with imprisonment of 6 months extendable to 1 year or with fine or with both.The petitioners firstly argued that they had decided to do a feature on the rise of drug abuse in the State with bona fide intention to alert the public regarding increase in drug abuse among youngsters in Kerala. It was argued that the accused and the channel took maximum care and precautions possible to conceal the identity of the survivor while telecasting the interviews given by the survivor.In all the direct interviews given by the survivor to the news channel, the survivor was thoroughly blurred and her voice was doctored; apart from this, multiple disclaimers were given by the news anchors where they said that the video and audio of the survivor were doctored in order to protect the survivor's identity. It was argued that while telecasting the original interview recorded on 9.8.2022 and the present programme in question, doctored voice of survivor was telecasted and therefore, none of the offences would attract in the facts of this case. Findings The Court relying on the statement of the survivor concluded that the voice of the survivor was doctored.It said, "Here comes the significance of the statement of the survivor herself, as already referred. The survivor had given statement that her voice was used with 'sentences jumbled'. That is to say, the voice was meddled up, disarranged and disorganized. The word 'doctored' means, change the content or appearance of (a document or picture) or voice in order to deceive or to falsify the same. This would go to show that the contention of the petitioners that they did not use the voice of the survivor in its original form, but in a doctored form is justified by the survivor's statement itself". The Court also took note of the laboratory analysis report which did not say that the voice is similar. The survivor's mother, father and teachers had given statement saying that the voice used in the video was of the survivor.The Court however held that the statements of them could not be given emphasis to against the statement of the survivor herself. The Court held that the channel had doctored the audio to conceal the identity of the survivor and therefore there is no offence under Section 23(4) of the PoCSO Act."On viewing the...

Kerala High Court Quashes POCSO Case Against Asianet News' Journalists, Staff Booked For Disclosing Survivor's Identity To Get High TRP

Manju Elsa Isac

Tags