The High Court of Punjab and Haryana directed the trial court to allow the recording of evidence through video conferencing for a complainant who is a resident of Canada in view of the strained diplomatic relations between India and Canada and observed that the evidence of the petitioner is necessary for the pursuits of justice and the mechanism of fair trial and depriving an opportunity to the petitioner to depose through video conferencing, who is stuck in Canada due to a diplomatic standoff would be violative of his right to free and fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Brief Facts:
The present petition was filed under Section 482 CrPC challenging the order of a Civil Court which rejected the application to allow him to record his statement through video conferencing. The petitioner was a complainant in a case filed under Section 408 IPC and stated to be a permanent resident of Canada. An application was thus filed for recording the statement of the petitioner through a video conferencing facility.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Canada and at the time of the recording of the prosecution witness, an application was filed by the learned additional public prosecutor for recording the statement of the petitioner through a video conferencing facility. It was submitted that the trial Court initially allowed the application vide and directed recording evidence of the petitioner as per the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the State of Maharashtra Vs. Dr. Praful B. Desai. However, evidence of the petitioner could not be recorded through the Coordinators at the Indian and Canadian Embassy due to frayed diplomatic relations between both countries at that time.
Observations of the court:
The court referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Praful B. Desai wherein it was held that the evidence in the criminal trial can be recorded through video conferencing in terms of Section 273 Cr. P.C and the evidence of electronic record i.e. evidence by video recording can be produced as evidence in terms of Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act and admissibility of such evidence is permissible in terms of Section 65A and 65B of the said Act.
It was further stated that the recourse to record evidence through video conferencing is all the more necessary when the attendance of a witness cannot be procured physically and any delay would affect the progress of the trial, which would cause great hardship and inconvenience to the witness by travelling a long distance to depose and the evidence of the petitioner being complainant is necessary for the pursuits of justice and the mechanism of a fair trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is not only available to the accused but it exists for the complainant victim as well and depriving an opportunity to the petitioner to depose through video conferencing, who is stuck in Canada due to a diplomatic standoff between India and Canada, would be violative of his right to a free and fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The court further opined that the recording of evidence through video conferencing would be more convenient and less traumatic for children, women and victims of abuse, much less, differently-abled persons who cannot attend physical hearings in the courtrooms conveniently. It was concluded that in view of the strained diplomatic relations between India and Canada owing to which the petitioner would not be in a position to procure a visa and travel to India and the fact that closing of the evidence by the order would cause grave prejudice to the petitioner being the complainant.
The decision of the Court:
The court allowed the petition and set aside the impugned order.
Case Title: Sukhmanjit Singh Dhindsa vs State of Punjab and ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar
Case No.: CRM-M No.59290 of 2023 (O&M)
Advocate for the Petitioner: Ms. Shivya Sehgal
Advocate for the Respondent: Ms. Navreet Kaur Barnala
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
