Keywords: Extrajudicial confessions,Secondary evidences.
In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court made it quite apparent that extrajudicial confessions do not acquire credibility just because they are made public in a newspaper article. Dinesh BS v. Karnataka State
A Karnataka High Court judgment to preserve a murder conviction of an accused based on media reports was deemed “surprising” by a bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Pankaj Mithal.
“…an extrajudicial confession cannot be given greater importance just because it is made public and is accessible to the whole public in a newspaper. Newspaper articles may only be included as secondary evidence, according to well-established legal precedent, the ruling said.
The findings were made by the court when it cleared two defendants in a murder case from 1994.
The two had been ruled not guilty by a trial court. The two defendants moved to the Supreme Court on appeal after the High Court reversed their acquittal and sentenced them to life in prison for murder in 2009.
The top court pointed out that one of the defendant’s convictions was largely driven by a report that appeared in a Kannada daily.
The prosecution questioned the article’s reporter as a witness, and the reporter testified during the trial that the accused confessed to him while he was imprisoned.
However, after reviewing the evidence, the court discovered that the only person who had dealt with the accused directly was the concerned sub-editor, not the reporter. Notably, no examination of the sub-editor took place throughout the trial.
Additionally, the reporter in the issue claimed to have heard the confession even though she had only spoken to other detainees who were awaiting trial.
The highest court made a note that the other accused were not treated equally to others who were in a similar situation.
In addition to this, the highest court found inconsistencies in the evidence of a witness for the prosecution who claimed to have taken the dead individual to the hospital.
The Court finally granted both appeals and acquitted the two individuals in light of these factors.
The two appellants were represented by Senior Advocate Dama Seshadri Naidu, Attorneys Pai Amit, NS Nappinai, and V Balaji.
Nishant Patil, an additional advocate general, represented the Karnataka government.
Name: Anamika Parasher, College: Jagran Lakecity University, Bhopal, Semester: LLB 5th semester an intern under Legal Vidhiya
0 Comments