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

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 programme, I would say the same as beneficial video which is intended to alert the public regarding availability of drugs even in the near vicinity of Police Stations and Excise Offices. No doubt, the menace of drug abuse is to be given prime concern at the present time and any endevour to arrest the menace and to save the youngsters from its trauma must be encouraged. Be it so, the channel deserves appreciation. On hearing the voice alleged to be that of the survivor, the voice are different the original video recorded on 9.8.2022 and the disputed one in this case. The short span of voice alleged to be that of the survivor, in fact, is shown in the video after jumbling the sentences, as stated by the survivor. So, on viewing the video also, it could not be held that the channel had any intention to disclose the identity of the survivor or disclosed the identity of the survivor by using her original voice, as such," the court added. 

While considering whether the petitioners committed forgery, the Court observed that for the offence to attract, a false document or false electronic record should be made with the intent to cause damage or injury to the public. The Court said that there was no intention to cause injury to the public or the survivor. The intention was to alert the public about the increased use of drug among youngsters in Kerala. The Court further observed that a doctored voice will have the characteristics of that. Since forgery is not attracted, the court quashed offences under Sections 471, 109 and 419 of IPC were quashed.

As regards to Section 83(2) of JJ Act, the Court said that for the offence to be attracted, the use of child or children for illegal activities should be found. The Court held that in that video daughter of 4^th accused was shown in the place of the victim and that too without revealing her identity. Therefore, offence under Section 83(2) of JJ Act is also not made in the case.

Case No: Crl.MC 9008 of 2024

Case Title: Sindhu S. and Others v State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 236