1. Witness in murder trial seeks examination on commission citing life threats — Application rejected by lower courts. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2018 Supreme(SC) 1066
SUPREME COURT
A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, JJ.
Anwar Khan - Appellant
v.
State of M.P. - Respondent
Special Leave to Appeal (Cr.) No.3928 of 2018; arising out of final judgment and order dated 3.4.2018 in MCRC No. 10479/2017 passed by the High Court of M.P. (Indore)
Decided on : 17.5.2018
Important Points
The Court permitted the examination of a witness via video conferencing to address safety concerns while upholding the accused's right to be present and cross-examine, providing a viable alternative to examination on commission when such facilities are available.
Subject
Criminal Law - Witness Protection
Act Referred
Headnote
Rakesh Dahiya, Aditya Dahiya and Satyavan Kudalwal for petitioners, Arjun Garg and Aakash Nandolia for respondent/State.
(1) Criminal P. C., 1973 -- S.284 -- evidence of prosecution witness -- is to be recorded in the presence of accused persons and they have a right of cross-examination -- even if order for commission is issued and Commissioner records evidenfce, it has to be in the presence of accused persons. [Para 1
(2) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S.284 -- petitioner an eye witness in murder case -- fears threat to life -- moved application for examination on commission -- recording of evidence through video conferencing directed. [Paras 2 & 3
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Witness contends that life threats preclude court attendance and requests examination on commission. (Para 1 )
3. Evidence must be recorded in the presence of the accused to uphold the right of cross-examination, making examination on commission difficult. (Para 1 )
4. Video conferencing is a permissible alternative to examination on commission to ensure witness testimony is recorded in the presence of the accused. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
5. Arrest warrants recalled; witness directed to record evidence through video conferencing at a designated district court. (Para 3 , 4 )
6. Does a threat to a witness's life automatically justify examination on commission?
No, because evidence must be recorded in the presence of the accused to protect their right to cross-examination. The court may instead suggest video conferencing as a viable alternative. (Para 1 )
7. How can the court ensure the accused's right to cross-examination when a witness cannot attend the trial court?
The court can utilize video conferencing facilities, allowing the witness to depose from a different district court while ensuring the accused is present during the recording of evidence. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
ORDER
1. The petitioner herein is a witness in the murder case of his employer with whom he was working as driver. As per the prosecution he is an eye witness and he has to depose in the case. However, the petitioner submits that there is a threat to his life and it may not be possible for him to go to the Court and depose. For this reason, he moved an application stating that he should be examined on commission. This application is rejected by the lower Court as well as the High Court. It would be difficult to issue the Commission to record the evidence of the petitioner as it is to be recorded in the presence of the accused persons and they have also a right of cross-examination. Therefore, even if the order or commission is issued and the Commissioner records the evidence, it has to be in the presence of the accused persons.
2. In the aforesaid circumstances a query was made by this Court as to whether video conferencing facilities are available at Indore so that the petitioner could be examined by video conferencing. We are informed that in fact video conferencing facilities are available in Indore where the trial is taking place i.e. Additional Sessions Judge (12th), Indore and also in the District Court, Udaipur.
3. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, it would be possible for the petitioner to go to the District Court at Udaipur on the date fixed by the trial Court to facilitate recording of the evidence of the petitioner through video conferencing.
4. In the aforesaid circumstances, arrest warrants against the petitioner are recalled on the assurance given by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he will get his statement recorded in the aforesaid manner.
5. The special leave petition is disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
