By this application, the applicant (NGO Prajwala) sought direction to Additional Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi to record evidence of some of the witnesses in a case arising out of FIR Nos. 144/2002 and 110/2002, registered at Police Station Kamala Market, Delhi under Sections 376 / 365 / 368 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Trial Judge had declined the request of the NGO to record the statement of the witnesses through video conferencing, mainly on the ground that neither the State Government nor his Court had such a facility and therefore, allowing such an application at this juncture would consume a lot of time, with the result that the trial would be delayed.
The applicant stated that bearing in mind the rehabilitation and reintegration of the victims of trafficking, compelling the said victims, who were to be examined as prosecution witnesses, to come to Delhi from distant places, where they had been rehabilitated, would not only cause immense inconvenience to them, it would also be detrimental to their personal lives. However, the victims were willing to have their statements recorded by means of video conferencing from the stations they were presently residing/rehabilitated.
After exploring all possibilities for video conferencing and bearing in mind the fact that it would definitely be inconvenient for the witnesses, placed in peculiar circumstances, to come to Delhi for the purpose of recording of their statements, the High Court of Delhi directed the Trial Court to fix a date for recording the statements of the witnesses, based in the State of Andhra Pradesh by video conferencing.
The High Court in this case referred to the judgment of Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra versus Dr. Praful B. Desai [(2003) 4 SCC 601], and stated that while recording evidence by the said mode the Trial Judge will keep in mind the safeguards, enumerated in the decision of the Supreme Court.
IndiaApplication Crl. M. 1467/04 in Crl. W. 532/1992 filed before High Court of Delhi at New Delhi for directions to Additional Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
High Court of Delhi
In State of Maharashtra versus Dr. Praful B. Desai the Supreme Court had observed (at page 603): “The evidence can be both oral and documentary and electronic records can be produced as evidence. This means that evidence, even in criminal matters, can also be by way of electronic records. This would include video-conferencing. Video-conferencing is an advancement in science and technology which permits one to see, hear and talk with someone far away, with the same facility and ease as if he is present before you i.e. in your presence. Thus, it is clear that so long as the accused and / or his pleader are present when evidence is recorded by video-conferencing, that evidence is recorded in the “presence” of the accused and would thus fully meet the requirements of Section 273 Criminal Procedure Code. Recording of such evidence would be as per “procedure established by law”. The advancement of science and technology is such that now it is possible to set up video- conferencing equipments in the court itself. In that case evidence would be recorded by the Magistrate or under his direction in the open court”.