In a first, a sessions court in Karnataka, evidence of victims of bonded labour was ordered to be taken through video conferencing. The third Additional and Sessions Judge, Anekal even allowed such deposition of 3 witnesses in the case via video conferencing from a civil court in Bolangir.
The case pertains to 2014, when the anti-human trafficking unit, along with the district administration and the police arrested a brick kiln owner for trafficking people and employing them as bonded labourers. A senior advocate called this move to be unprecedented coming from a lower court and said, “Witnesses fail to depose before the court due to various reasons, including fear of the accused. Allowing them to depose from their hometowns will reduce such incidents”.
The International Justice Mission (IJM) which works for rescue and rehabilitation of bonded labourers welcomed the order and said, “This has the potential to set a precedent for future bonded labour and trafficking cases, whereby victims can depose via video conferencing from their native places. It may also assist in the speedy and efficient disposal of bonded labour cases,”
State of Maharashtra vs. Praful B Desai[1]
Section 273 of CrPC deals with “Evidence to be taken in presence of accused”
“Except as otherwise expressly provided, all evidence taken in the course of the trial or other proceeding shall be taken in the presence of the accused, or, when his personal attendance is dispensed with, in the presence of his pleader.”
The Supreme Court had held that in a video conference the accused and the pleader can see the witness as clearly as if the witness was actually sitting before them. In fact, the accused may be able to see the witness better than he may have been able to if he was sitting in the dock in a crowded court room. Facility by play back would enable better observation of demeanour. The court also dispensed with the personal physical attendance of the accused and held that presence of the pleader of the accused is deemed to be presence of the accused and the word “presence” used in section 273 can be constructive presence and it does not have a restricted meaning of physical presence.
Since after the apex court judgment of 2003 many courts have adopted the practice and among the many such cases, one may quote SujayMitravs State of West Bengal[2] in which the Additional Sessions Judge, Alipore had allowed deposition of the complainant who was living in Ireland and the same when it went into appeal, was affirmed by the Calcutta High Court as it found no infirmity in the order allowing evidence through video conferencing.
It was reported in January 2019 that the Madras High Court issued rules relating to video conference facilities thus enabling the courts in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to record evidences and submissions form witnesses or persons involved in court proceedings where it would be expensive, inconvenient or otherwise not desirable for a person to attend the court in person. The notification read, “An over-riding factor is that the use of video conferencing in any particular case must be consistent with furthering the interest of justice and should cause minimal disadvantage to the parties.”
The lower courts are the epicentre of the criminal justice system and such precedents being applied by lower courts shows their readiness to accept change and make justice delivery effective, efficient and their endeavour to improve the system clearly shows. This not only furthers the interest of justice in terms of speedy trials which avoids adjournments due to inability of witness to attend in person, but also proves as a foolproof system in the interest of witness protection. Although India has a long path to tread with respect to witness protection, the practice of recording evidence via video conference is a big step and will go a long way in furthering protection to witnesses in criminal cases.
Related:
Court allows trafficking victims to depose from Odisha
Tamil Nadu, Puducherry courts to record evidence through video conference facility