New Delhi: The largest media group in Odisha, OTV, has said that the Odisha police is harassing some of its reporters over a story that put the investigative agencies in the dock. The state police has denied the allegation.

The television channel said that it aired a story on January 1 that challenged the state police’s version of the high-profile Kunduli gangrape case, in which a 14-year-old girl in October 2017 had alleged that a group of security personnel had raped her in Lanjiguda forest, Koraput district.

The story refuted claims of the state police, which had said in its report to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) that “no foreign articles” were found in the forensic examination of the survivor’s undergarments. The channel, however, said that the state forensic science laboratory (SFSL) report showed the presence of two people’s semen on the survivor’s clothes.

The story assumed greater importance when the girl, from Musaguda village in Koraput, committed suicide on January 22, 2018. Following this, the Naveen Patnaik-led Biju Janata Dal (BJD) government in the state had to face a lot of flak for the apparent poor handling of the case. In February 2018, the NHRC visited the state to probe the incident.

As the furore over the case grew, the Odisha government ordered a judicial enquiry by a sitting district judge on November 8. The case was also simultaneously transferred to the state crime branch for a separate enquiry.

Responding to the OTV report, the SFSL said that the report shown in the story was a “preliminary inter-divisional report” and not “the final report”. OTV, however, has alleged that the reporters were put through unnecessary harassment, with crime branch officers pressurising them to reveal how they were able to access the SFSL report.

A press release by OTV said, “To cooperate in the investigation after getting a summon from the Crime Branch, OTV representatives reached the investigative agency’s Bhubaneswar-based office only to find the officials asking out of context questions in a bid to harass.”

OTV also claimed that the “agency tried to elicit information on the day-to-day working of OTV, interfering in the freedom of a news channel”.

“Their main question was about the source from where we got the report and in the guise of the questions, they were trying to get information on various internal matters which were in no way related to the case or the report. What we could feel is that they were trying to harass us,” said chief reporter of OTV, Shanti Bhushan Mishra, who was summoned by the police.

Similarly, the channel’s Cuttack bureau chief, Gautam Panda, said in the press note, “They wanted to know the source of the report and asked us a slew of questions. They also, in a manner, were forcing us to reveal the source.”

Following the alleged harassment, OTV has accused the state police of infringing upon the free functioning of the press. “Can a media house or a journalist be forced to reveal its source? Is it not a shallow attempt to curtail the freedom and functioning of the media? Whether such probe is an attempt to harass the journalists while deviating from the direction of the investigation?”

It questioned the crime branch’s autonomy and indicated that the agency may be under pressure of the state government to harass the channel. “Is the CB taking such a stance by coming under pressure from higher authorities,” OTV asked in its press note.

OTV is headed by Jagi Mangat Panda, wife of the former BJD leader Baijayant Panda, who was recently suspended from the party’s primary membership for alleged “anti-party” activities. The story in question was aired before the BJD took the decision to suspend him after months of infighting within the party.

What the police says

The state police, however, denied the allegations on two fronts. One, it said that the story aired by OTV showed an incomplete picture and, two, that the harassment allegations levelled by the channel were untrue.

A highly-placed police official, who is in the know of the case but refused to be named, told The Wire, “Whenever a test is conducted, there is a procedure involved in that. The exhibits go through several scientific tests in different divisions of the SFSL. In all cases, the various divisions of SFSL make their reports which are subject to scrutiny. In most cases, these preliminary reports are rejected if they are not corroborated by other divisions. In the whole process of conducting these tests, there are multiple observations and contradictions, based on which the SFSL reaches a conclusion. The final test is DNA profiling. The OTV showed one such rejected preliminary inter-divisional report, the authenticity of which was not final.”

“The final report observes that no semen in the undergarments of the girl,” he said, adding that a press note in this regard was released immediately after OTV, which he thought was misleading the public, aired the story.

He said that because there was so much confusion, the DGP decided to send the exhibits for an independent probe to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Kolkata, which is a government of India institution. “The CFSL’s final report confirmed the integrity of the SFSL report,” he added.

Secondly, on the question of harassing the reporters, a press note by the state police says that the crime branch had, indeed, called “a few staff members of OTV for their examination as witness on 05.04.2018 in connection with the case of unauthorised and illegal leakage of documents from SFSL, Bhubaneswar”. However, it denied allegations of harassment.

The press note circulated by the state police says, “In response to the notice of investigating officer of the CB, Shri Ramesh Rath, Shri Shanti Bhushan Mishra, and Shri Goutam Panda of OTV willingly came to the Economic Offence Wing office at Bhubaneswar, where there statements were recorded. Normally, such examination of witnesses is conducted at CID, CB headquarters, at Cuttack. However, keeping in view the convenience of the media persons their examination was done in Bhubaneswar.”

“The examination was done in presence of advocate of OTV Shri S P Mohanty, who accompanied the witnesses and stayed throughout the proceedings. Due courtesies were extended to the media persons and examination was done in an extremely cordial manner. They were allowed to go immediately after the examination….There was no attempt whatsoever to undermine the freedom of press as it is being made out to be,” it added.

A senior official in the state police told The Wire on the condition of anonymity that the reporters were questioned in a case that was registered against an unknown SFSL employee, who leaked the rejected preliminary SFSL report. “The exhibits of the alleged gangrape victim was sent to SFSL by the honourable court, and hence were properties of the court. The final report had to be submitted to the honourable court only. It could not be discussed in public unless the court decides so. Any leakage of those documents will be deemed as illegal. Therefore, a case was filed against a SFSL employee (unknown), who leaked the report. The police is in the right to question the reporters. Section 161 of CrPC says that an investigating officer is in the right to question anyone who is acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case,” the police official said.

“It is absolutely within their right not to divulge any information. But it is also the right of the investigating officer to elicit any information from them,” he added.