Shraddha murder case: Media house restrained from publishing content of charge sheet

New Delhi: Delhi's Saket court on Monday passed an order on a plea moved by Delhi Police against a channel and other channels seeking an order restraining them from disseminating content of charge sheet including digital evidence in the Shraddha murder case stating that it is "not" a public document.

Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Rakesh Kumar Singh passed a restraining order against the channel and list the matter on April 17 for further hearing. The court said that a detailed hearing will be given to both the parties.

Special public prosecutor (SPP) Amit Prasad said that the Delhi Police earlier approached the court on credible information that one of the media houses has accessed the audio-video evidence related to the Narco test and the Practo app.

"Delhi Police approached the court on credible information that one of the media houses has accessed the audio-video evidence related to Narco test and Practo app and is likely to disseminate the same today," Amit Prasad told ANI.

"It has been learnt that some media channels propose to broadcast one such audio-video evidence which is an integral part of the charge sheet filed in case the Shradha Walker murder case. Such telecast/broadcast may cause irreparable damage to the cause of justice in this sensitive case which is sub-judice before the competent court," read an official release from DCP PRO.

This matter is related to the alleged murder of Shraddha Walkar by his live-in partner Aftab Amin Poonawala on May 18, 2022.

Earlier on April 6, Delhi's Saket Court adjourned the hearing on arguments on charges against accused Aftab Poonawala in the Shraddha Walkar murder case in view of the lawyers' strike in lower courts.

Aftab was produced in the court physically. The next date for the hearing is April 14.

Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Manisha Khurana Kakkar after noting that the lawyers are not appearing due to absenteeism from work adjourned the matter.

The defence counsel is to argue on the point of charge.

Lawyers remained absent from work also on Thursday in protest of the alleged murder of advocate Virender Narwal in the Dwarka area.

On the last date of the hearing on April 3, the court took on record the copy of the judgement filed by the Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Amit Prasad and Madhukar Pandey.

The court had granted liberty to the counsel of the accused to file a copy of any judgement if he wished to file.

SPP Amit Prasad had submitted that there is a clear judgement that the charge under section 201 of IPC can be framed against the person who destroys the evidence to shield the main offender as well against the person who committed the main offence.

On the earlier date, the counsel for accused Aftab had argued that the charges of murder and disappearance of evidence can't be framed jointly. These charges can be framed alternatively.

Delhi police opposed the contention and sought time to place Judgements.

Advocate Akshay Bhandari had argued that either I (Aftab) can be charged with murder or for disappearing the evidence.

The accused cannot be charged for murder and disappearance of evidence under sections 302 and 201 of IPC together, the counsel argued. It can be framed alternatively.

He argued that the accused can be charged with the offence of murder under 302 IPC or he can be framed for the offence of shielding the main offender under section 201 IPC.

Advocate Bhandari had argued Mere saying that I (Aftab) am guilty of murder is not sufficient. They have statements of eyewitnesses only. The Prosecution has to show the manner in which the crime was committed.

SPP Amit Prasad rebutted that the joint charges can be framed under section 201 for disappearing the evidence.

He had also submitted that the relied upon a chain of evidence, statement of witnesses, a record of past events and circumstances, forensic evidence, manner of offence etc were submitted before the court.

Delhi police have concluded its arguements on the charge of murder and disappearance of evidence against the accused.