By Neha Choudhary
Introduction
In today’s scenario, there can be seen some dominant issues pertinent to crime nowadays. The crime is at its peak when it comes to kidnapping, abducting, murder, abetment of any crime, or any other heinous atrocities which are everywhere in the headlines. Some of these cases have been on the news for a very long time and were very influential to the general public.
There were cases of celebrities and the crimes committed by them or many of them have been a target of these dreadful crimes. The awful news of the suicide of the celebrity Sushant Singh Rajput and his accused for abetting his suicide were on the highlight for a very long time.
Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 makes the abetment of suicide a crime and a punishable offense and prescribes its punishment of either a jail term of up to ten years or a fine or both.
Section 306 of IPC states:
“If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide shall be punished with imprisonment of either imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
IPC also explicitly defines the terms related to abetment i.e., abettor under Section 108 IPC and abetment as an interpretation also includes aiding, instigating, engaging in a conspiracy in committing the offense.
There have been certain cases in the limelight for abetting one’s death which includes the shocking death of Sushant Singh Rajput and the accused was arrested for alleged abetment of his suicide and another case where Arnab Goswami, the TV Editor-in-Chief who was arrested under Section 306 and Section 34 of the IPC.
What is the issue in Arnab Goswami’s case?
Republic TV editor-in-chief Arnab Goswami on 4th November was detained by Maharashtra police for the 2018 closed case for alleged abetment to suicide of a 53-year-old interior designer under Section 306 of IPC.
In 2018, the architect and his mother allegedly committed suicide due to non-payment of the dues by Republic TV of Goswami along with the other accused as written in the suicide note by the victim. Goswami was arrested and dragged from his house by 20 armed policemen.
As per the reports, the arrest was held by the encounter specialist, Sachin Vaze and according to the affidavit submitted in the Court he was tortured and beaten up in the custody.
This has not been the first time that an FIR has been lodged against Republic TV or Arnab Goswami, as before the abetment case was filed against him, the republic TV was in the limelight for the scam where the channel along with five others was said to be involved in generating money for boosting TRPs, though the accusations have repeatedly been denied by the channel.
Other than this, an FIR has also been lodged against Goswami for allegedly communalizing incidents like the gathering of migrants outside the Bandra railway station and the lynching of Sadhus in Palghar.
In the past Journalists have been charged for sedition, incitement to riots, and the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).
Maharashtra Legislative Assembly had also issued a notice to Goswami for the inception of breach of privilege motion for news coverage related to the case of Sushant Singh Rajput’s death; however, Goswami has challenged the accusations against him in the Supreme Court.
Arnab Goswami is an Indian journalist and news anchor. He is the managing director and editor-in-chief of Republic Media Network. It was a 2018 case when an architect and his mother died by suicide because of non-payment of dues. In May 2018, an Interior designer Anvay Naik and his mother Kumud Naik were found dead at their bungalow in Alibaug.
According to the post mortem reports, the police conveyed that Anvay committed suicide and died but the mother was strangulated till death and had not committed suicide.
An FIR was registered against Arnab Goswami based on the suicide note allegedly written by the victim, Anvay in which he mentioned that they have committed suicide due to the payments that have been due and unpaid by the three large companies which included the Republic TV chief.
Arnab Goswami along with Feroz Shah of Skimedia and Niteish Sarda of Smartworks who owned Rs 83 lakh, Rs 4 crore and Rs 55 lakh respectively. The reason behind committing suicide must have been the heavy debts and struggle to repay the amount as has been mentioned by the officers dealing with the case.
However, Goswami had denied the charges and stated that he had paid the debts. There were reports that the victim had also been threatened by the contractor to repay the debts.
How was the case investigated?
According to the investigation of the case, Kumud’s body was found on the ground floor around the sofa and Anvay’s body was found hanging on the first floor of the bungalow, through which police came across to the fact that Kumud had not killed herself, however, Anvay must have killed her mother before committing suicide.
In 2019, the concerned police closed the case and the investigation as they did not find any evidence to prove the abetment. Moreover, the closure report emphasized that:
“The three accused that have been named work in different fields, locations and no link between the three have been established in the investigation. No evidence has been found so far in the investigation that the action on the part of the three accused named in the suicide note until now, individually or together, made it unbearable for the deceased to continue living or had no option but to commit suicide. Hence, in the absence of evidence in this case, ‘A final’ summary should be accepted.”
However, in May this year, Anvay’s daughters approached the concerned authorities and seek to reopen the case as according to her, the justice had not been delivered rightfully, and the accused have not been arrested even though their names were especially specified in the suicide note.
She also asserted that the facts regarding the unpaid debts have not been investigated. She approached the Maharashtra Home Minister, Anil Deshmukh, for undelivered justice in Anvay’s case after which he tweeted that:
“Adnya Naik had complained to me that Alibaug Police had not investigated non-payment of dues from Arnab Goswami’s Republic which drove her entrepreneur father and grandma to suicide in May 2018. I’ve ordered a CID re-investigation of the case.”
This was after the claims made by the victim’s daughter, that the case was reopened by the Maharashtra police, and the accused were asked to back his claims and prove that he had made the dues. Goswami was dragged, assaulted, and arrested in this case after the months of reopening of the case though he had been under judicial custody for 14 days as the magistrate denied the police custody as sought by the police.
However, after eight days of his arrest, Supreme Court granted him bail due to lack of evidence for abetting the suicide of Anvay and to keep him under custody under Section 306, IPC.
Nationwide Criticism against the arrest of Arnab Goswami
The arrest of Arnab Goswami and how he was manhandled by the officers had been condemned by journalist organizations and it has also been stated by the broadcasting minister that,“it is an attack on freedom of the press in Maharashtra and it reminds of the Emergency Days,” and the authorities have taken “revenge action” against the media editor.
It has also been tweeted by Amit Shah that, “the Congress and its allies have shamed democracy once again. Blatant misuse of state power against Republic TV & Arnab Goswami is an attack on individual freedom and the 4th pillar of democracy”.
Due to accelerated hearing and bail granted to the journalist within 14 days even though there have been cases where other journalists and social activists were undergoing imprisonment for a very long period has thus brought the question of double standards of the judicial system and judicial delays. This has also been stated that:
“The Indian judiciary runs on a hierarchy – there is the lower judiciary, the high courts and at the top the Supreme Court. All litigants have to follow this chain, except in rare cases when a higher court may intervene depending on the gravity of the case.”
Moreover, it has also been quoted that, “It is quite surprising that the Supreme Court chose to hear Goswami’s matter when the lower court, in this case, the High Court, had already directed that his bail plea should be heard by a local court.”
However, in its order, the Court stated that “We must send a message today to the High Courts as well. Please exercise your jurisdiction to uphold personal liberty; if this Court were not to interfere today, we are traveling on a path of destruction of personal liberty undeniably.”
What Guidelines were given to Protect the rights of an Arrested Person?
The arrest of the Arnab Goswami and the torture he had faced had led to the All India Bar Association (AIBA) to term it as a transgression of the Supreme Court guidelines to assure the rights of the arrestees and thus the AIBA chairman has demanded an immediate release of the journalist and termed it as “blatant misuse of power” by the Maharashtra government against Republic TV and Arnab Goswami.
The letter stated that “The illegal arrest is an attack on individual freedom and the fourth pillar of democracy. The guidelines of the Supreme Court in the judgment passed in DK Basu Vs. State of West Bengal,[1] has been violated by Mumbai Police in the matter of arrest of Arnab Goswami.”
The letter detailed the guidelines which according to AIBA were violated in the case of Arnab Goswami. The letter highlighted:
- All the police officers shall wear their name tags accurately and mentioning their names and position.
- There must be details of the concerned officer who is interrogating the case in the official register.
- The person arrested or detained in custody in a police station, interrogation center or other lock-up has the right to inform one friend or relative or other known people about the arrest.
- There must be a well-prepared arrest memo and file arresting a person. There must be proper details of the arrest i.e. attested with a signature of at least one witness who may be either a member of the family of the arrestee or a respectable person of the locality from where the arrest is made, the time, date, and place of the arrest.
- It is also to be mentioned that if the person who has been arrested requests the officer to record any minor/major injuries on his/her body in an inspection memo, then it must be done.
- The file (memorandum) should be signed by the person who has been arrested and the arrested person must be given a copy of the memo.
- It is the right of the arrested person to meet and consult a lawyer of his own choice during the interrogation and the police officer cannot infringe their right.
- The police must send one copy of the investigation and inspection file and arrest memo along with other documents of the arrest to the Magistrate for the records.
The guidelines have been mentioned in the letter to make sure that no concerned authorities violate the rights of the arrestee as it has been seen in the case of Arnab Goswami that his arrest has violated the basic guidelines as he along with his family members has been tortured and physically manhandled by the police.
It has also been stated that the Governments should not act with a vindictive mindset against their critics as journalists and media organizations cannot be harassed and intimidated for their comments, views, and opinions even being disagreeable and biased as has been held in the case of Lucknow Development Authority Vs M.K.Gupta[2] that:
“When public servant by mala fide, oppressive and capricious acts in performance of official duty causes, injustice, harassment and agony to common man and renders the State or its instrumentality liable to pay damages to the person aggrieved from public fund, State or its instrumentality is duty-bound to later recover the amount of compensation so paid from the public servant concerned.”
Conclusion
The Republic TV editor-in-chief, Arnab Goswami had been arrested this year in the alleged abetment to a suicide case of the interior designer, Anvay. It was a two-year-old case that had been reopened by the police in 2019 due to the claims made by the victim’s daughter.
According to her, the investigation in the first place had not been done rightfully and no actions have been taken against the accused whose names have been mentioned in the suicide note.
After the case was reopened, Arnab Goswami due to lack of evidence was dragged out of his house, tortured, and manhandled by the police officers.
He was under judicial custody for 14 days. However, the magistrate granted him bail and thus it has been the topic for nationwide criticism as to double standards of the system.
Moreover, there have been seen that journalist organizations criticized the system for manhandling the victim and thus AIBA termed it as a violation of the guidelines for the arrested person and thus wrote the letter to the concerned authority specifically mentioning the guidelines for the authority and the rights of the arrested person.
References
- DK Basu Vs. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416 ↑
- Lucknow Development Authority Vs M.K.Gupta, 1994 AIR 787 ↑
