Mangalore Home Stay case: Dacoity charges on Journalist Naveen Surinje

Mangalore Today News Network

Mangalore, 15 October 2012: The Mangalore Rural police filed a charge sheet in connection with the July 28 attack on a birthday party at ‘Morning Mist homestay’ in Padil and police slapped docoity charges against TV journalist Naveen Surinje and Video Journalist Sharan Raj.

Police filed additional charges against these journalists along with docity and other charges. These journalists are now facing more charges than perpetrators of crime.

A copy of the charge sheet available with www.folkslive.com mentions 44 accused including Subash Padil and others who are yet to be identified. The police so far arrested 26 persons and all are under judicial custody. The remaining 18 persons, including Naveen Soorinje, a reporter with Kasturi news channel and Sharan, the cameraman from Samaya TV, a terrestrial TV channel, have been termed as “yet to be arrested”. Sharan hails from Pudukotai district in Tamilnadu while Naveen is from Surinje near Bajpe.

Initially the journalistic fraternity felt that police would file case against journalists under the section ‘B’ & ‘C’ of Indian Penal Code 505 and section 3 and 4 of The Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act 1986. But, the charge sheet suggests that these two journalists are part of docity gang and they are booked under section 395 of IPC.  Whoever commits dacoity shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to pay fine under IPC 395.

All the 44 accused are guilty of under section 120-b, 143, 148, 114,341,342,323,326,354,395, 447, 448,427,504,506,509,149 read with section 2A of Karnataka Prevention of Destruction of Property Act 1989, says Investigation Officer (IO) in the charge sheet.

Police filed additional charges against these two journalists under section ‘B’ & ‘C’ of Indian Penal Code 505 and section 3 and 4 of The Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act 1986.

According to the charge sheet, Naveen Surinje and Sharan Raj were not only part of the gang but also committed crime punishable under section various sections including recording of indecent behaviour of assailants on girls, recorded scenes of humiliation and distributed to media houses. Thereby, not only defamed innocent girls but also created public unrest.

However, police have not invoked provisions of section 13 ‘A’ and ‘B’ of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967, which had been mentioned in the first information report. But, it requires permission from the Home Ministry while filing charge sheet if it was mentioned in the First Information Report.

In the 360-page charge sheet, the police claimed to have found evidence to charge all the 44 persons for outraging the modesty of women, indecent behaviour, dacoity, unlawful assembly, causing grievous hurt and breach of peace. The police have included statements of all the 13 victims in the charge sheet and 25 others as witness. Witness list included name of those who organised protest against the incident.

Another interesting aspect in the charge sheet is that police named two other media persons as witness. According to the charge sheet, police named Vinaya Krishna, Photographer, as 18th witness and Rajesh Poojary, cameraman of TV9 Karnataka, as witness number 20. Both were present in the place and recorded still photographs and visuals. Further, police had seized photography materials from these two media persons with proper mahazar records.