Admissibility of Newspaper Reports as Evidence in Judicial Proceedings

Mohammed Shahjahan: There is no end to crimes being committed across the globe everyday. The media including newspapers are full of reports relating to those incidents of crimes. The informants or complainants tend to attach newspaper reports on the relevant incidents of crimes with their complaints lodged with police stations or filed before the Courts of law. The investigating officers are at times found affixing newspaper reports with their investigation reports with a view to strengthening the same. There have also been instances of Trial Courts admitting newspaper reports as evidence, thereby convicting the accused in Criminal Cases.

We are now faced with a media world characterized by self-censor, propaganda and other crises with fake news on top of it all. ‘Paid News’ and “Media Trial’ are the two other serious ailments the media outlets suffer from. Under such circumstances, it is pertinent to ask a number of fundamental questions relating to admissibility of newspaper reports as evidence in judicial proceedings such as-are newspaper reports admissible in judicial proceedings? If so, how? If no, why not? Can such reports form the basis of conviction or acquittal in criminal cases?

For answers to the questions above, let us now turn back to the statutory provisions and case-laws in this regard. That the said questions can be answered in both the positive and the negative will be amply clear from the following.

As per Section 3 of the Evidence Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), a ‘Document’ is any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks, or by more than one of those means, intended to be used, or which may be used, for the purpose of recording that matter while a ‘writing’ as well as words printed, lithographed or photographed have been illustrated to be documents. Newspapers, for that matter, are documents that may form part of the documentary evidence in judicial proceedings.

Sections 61 to 73 of the Act deal with documentary evidence. Section 61 of the Evidence Act, 1872 provides that the contents of documents may be proved either by primary or by secondary evidence. And secondary evidence includes oral accounts of the contents of a document per Section 63 of the Act. Section 65 of the Act enumerates cases in which secondary evidence relating to documents may be given.

Under the said Sections of the Act, for newspaper reports to be admissible as evidence, the reporters or correspondents concerned are required to appear before the Court, exhibit the reports and also to prove the contents of the reports through oral evidence; he/she has to withstand the test of cross-examination as well. Otherwise, such reports are inadmissible as evidence.

We may now have a look at what the Apex Courts from home and abroad held on the issue at hand.

In the Case of Nurul Islam & Others Vs. The State reported in 40 DLR (1988) 122, a Division Bench of the hon’ble High Court Division held, inter alia, that,

“Now let us consider the contention of the learned Advocate that conviction of the appellants was also based on inadmissible evidence Ext. X, the news item published in the Daily Sangbad. On a reference to the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge we find that he took into consideration the Ext. X while saying, ‘The matter was also published in the Daily Sangbad marked Ext. X in which it transpires that accused Salem Hawladar, Saber, Shahjahan, Firoj, Sadek, Syed Mal, Morshed, Mofajjal, Nurul Islam, JabalHiq, sadek and Mufajjal committed the murder’. We hold that the learned Judge was absolutely wrong in taking Ext. X into consideration. Although a newspaper is admissible in evidence without a formal proof, yet the paper if so facto is not a proof of its contents. The newspaper cannot be treated as proof of the facts stated therein.”

In the Case of Osena Begum alias Babuler Ma & Another Vs. the State reported in 55 DLR (2003) 299, a Division Bench of the hon’ble High Court Division held, inter alia, that,

“He quoted entire reports of the newspaper in his judgment. Anyone going through such sensitive reports would get sentimental and agitated. Newspaper report cannot be admitted into evidence unless the reporter or correspondent of such report comes to the witness box to vouchsafe in support of such report on oath. Even then, such report cannot take the place of legal proof of the facts as stated in such report. No one was examined in the case in support of such reports. In the absence of any proof whatsoever, the claim of the informant that the condemned prisoners committed murder of the deceased for dowry is nothing but a hoax.”

In the Indian jurisdiction, the Calcutta High Court in the Case of Narayan Choudhury vs Radha Gobinda Dutta reported in AIR 1971 CAL 53held, inter alia, that, “As a statement of a fact contained in a newspaper is merely hearsay and therefore, inadmissible in evidence, in the absence of the maker of the statement appearing in court and deposing to have perceived the fact reported.”

The Lahore High Court in the Case reported in AIR 1925 LAHORE 299 held, inter alia, that,

“Even if newspapers are admissible in evidence without formal proof, the paper itself is not proof of its contents. It would merely amount to an anonymous statement.”

The manner or mode of proof of facts stated in newspaper reports does not necessarily differ from that of other documents on the records of the Case such as the Ejahar/FIR, Police Reports, Medical or Injury Certificates, Inquest or Post-Mortem Reports and the like.

Though newspaper reports carry probative value, such reports affixed with the records of the cases become useless in the absence of legal proof; the reporters or correspondents are neither cited as witnesses nor are they produced before the Courts to vouchsafe in support of their reports.

There are many who are of the opinion that truthful newspaper reports made by skilled and honest correspondents and proved legally before the Courts concerned could contribute significantly to upholding rule of law.

Writer: Advocate, Supreme Court of Bangladesh.