The Hon’ble Delhi High Court ruled that the purpose of obtaining the consent of accused prior to permitting witness examination via video conferencing  is to address their concerns and ensure that the right of cross- examination is effectively exercised and they are not prejudiced in any manner. 

Brief Facts: 

The present petition has been filed for setting aside an order vide which a witness was allowed to be examined through video conferencing.

Brief Background: 

The Petitioner (Accused) preferred an application seeking physical presence of the witness as witness was to be confronted with several documents during cross-examination which may not be feasible on examination of the witness through video conferencing.

The witness however informed he is no more a citizen of India and is residing in Australia. Further, stated that he was 79 years old, suffering from number of ailments, due to which he is unable to travel long distance for physical appearance as a witness.

Contentions of the Petitioner: 

It was urged that the sanction had been allegedly accorded by witness, relying upon material documents filed along with charge-sheet and the Petitioner has a right to put up the documents relied upon by the prosecution, to the witness during cross-examination. 

It was stated that the learned Judge should have obtained the consent of all the accused, prior to passing the order for recording the evidence through video conferencing. Further,  in terms of provisions of Video Conferencing Rules, 2021, a formal application in the prescribed format has to be filed after obtaining consent of the accused before examination of any witness through video conferencing.

It was contended that merely because it may be inconvenient for a witness to attend the trial, it cannot be directed that witness may be examined through video conferencing, if it denies opportunity of effective cross- examination.

Contentions of the Respondent: 

It was urged that the Petitioner was an ‘Executive Director’ in the company at the relevant time. 

Observations of the Court:

The Bench held that considering the facts and circumstances, it may be preposterous at this stage to conclude that right of cross-examination of co-accused can be foreclosed only on the ground that the witness had accorded sanction only in

respect of accused. The learned Trial Court is required to appropriately look into the concerns of the petitioner/co-accused in this regard and ensure that they are able to effectively exercise their rights of cross-examination and put up the relevant documents to the witness, if required, during cross-examination.

It was ruled that the purpose of obtaining the consent of accused is to address their concerns and ensure that the right of cross- examination is effectively exercised and they are not prejudiced in any manner. 

The decision of the Court: 

Based on the aforementioned reasoning, the Court remanded matter back to the Trial Court to consider the issue after taking into account consent of all the accused. 

Case Title: Ram Niwas Dhuriya V. Central Bureau Of Investigation

Case No.: CRL.M.C. 1193/2024

Coram: Hon'ble Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta

Advocates for Petitioner: Advs. Ms.Rebecca John, Sr.Advocate with Ms.Neha Rathi, Mr.Azad Khokher, Mr.Kayal Giri, Mr.Kamal Kishore and Mr.Pravir Singh 

Advocates for Respondent: Advs. Mr.Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, SPP, CBI with Mr.Kushagra Kumar, Mr.Abhinav Bhardwaj Ms.K.Manaswini

Read More @LatestLaws.com:

Picture Source :