2003 (4) TMI 570 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether evidence can be recorded by video conferencing in a criminal trial.
2. Interpretation of Section 273 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
3. Compliance with Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
4. Practical difficulties and procedural safeguards in recording evidence by video conferencing.

Summary:

1. Whether evidence can be recorded by video conferencing in a criminal trial:
The Supreme Court was tasked with determining if evidence in a criminal trial could be recorded via video conferencing. The Bombay High Court had previously ruled that, based on an interpretation of Section 273 CrPC, evidence could not be recorded in this manner. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the term "presence" in Section 273 does not necessarily mean physical presence and can include constructive presence, such as through video conferencing.

2. Interpretation of Section 273 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC):
Section 273 CrPC mandates that evidence be taken in the presence of the accused. The Supreme Court noted that the section allows for the presence of the pleader to be deemed as the presence of the accused, indicating that actual physical presence is not a must. The Court emphasized that the term "presence" should be interpreted in light of technological advancements, allowing for video conferencing as a valid means of recording evidence.

3. Compliance with Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India:
The respondents argued that any deviation from the procedure established by law would violate Article 21. The Supreme Court held that if the existing provisions of the CrPC permit recording of evidence by video conferencing, it would not be contrary to Article 21. The Court highlighted that the primary duty of the Court is to do justice, and technological advancements should be utilized to ensure that justice is served without compromising the rights of the accused.

4. Practical difficulties and procedural safeguards in recording evidence by video conferencing:
The Supreme Court addressed concerns about practical difficulties such as time differences, administration of oaths, and potential interruptions during video conferencing. The Court suggested that an officer be deputed to oversee the process, ensuring that the witness is not coached and that the accused has full opportunity for cross-examination. The Court also noted that the costs of video conferencing should be borne by the State.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Bombay High Court and directed the trial court to proceed with recording the evidence of Dr. Greenberg via video conferencing. The trial court was requested to dispose of the case within one year. The respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the appeals to the State and the complainant.