Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(SC) 910

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. Nageswara Rao, S. Abdul Nazeer, Indu Malhotra, JJ.
In Re: Contagion Of Covid 19 Virus In Children Protection Homes - Appellant
Versus
. - Respondent
SMW (c) No.4 of 2020 with W.P. (Crl.) No.274 of 2020 (PIL-W).
Decided On : 21-01-2021

Advocates appeared:
Gaurav Agrawal, Advocate, A.C. Mr. Tushar Mehta, S.G. Mrs. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Mr Ashutosh Mohan, Advocate, Ms. Neha Rai, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG Mr. G.S.Makker, Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Advocate, Mr. Akshay Amritanshu, Advocate, Mr. S.S. Rebello, Ms. Anitha Shenoy.Sr. Advocate, Ms. Srishti Agnihotri, Advocate, Mr. Abhishek Jebaraj Advocate, Ms. Kriti Awasthi, Advocate, Ms. Sanjana Grace Thomas, Advocate, Ms. Nimisha Menon, Advocate, Ms. Anmol Gupta, Advocate, Ms. Nupur Raut, Advocate, Nishanth Patil, Advocate, Mr. S. C. Verma, (Advocate, Genl.) Mr. Sumeer Sodhi Mr. Arjun Nanda, Advocate, Mr. Suhaan Mukerji, Advocate, Mr. Vishaal Prasad, Advocate, Mr. Nikhil Parikshith, Advocate, Mr. Abhishek Manchanda, Advocate, Mr. Sayandeep Pahari, Advocate, PLR Chambers & Co. Mr. Siddhesh Kotwal, Advocate, Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, Advocate, Mr. Divyansh Tiwari, Advocate, Ms. Ana Upadhyay, Advocate, Mr. Nirnimesh Dube, Advocate, Ms. Astha Sharma, Advocate, Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, Advocate, Dr. Monika Gusain, Advocate, Mr. Shekhar Raj Sharma, Advocate, Advocate, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen, Advocate, Ms. Shashi Juneja, Advocate, Ms. Pinky Behera, Advocate, Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, Advocate, Mr. Nalin Kohli, AAG Ms. Diksha Rai, Advocate, Ms. Palak Mahajan, Advocate, Mr. Raghvendra Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Narendra Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Mahfooz A. Nazki, Advocate, Mr. Polanki Gowtham, Advocate, Mr. Shaik Mohamad Haneef, Advocate, Mr. T.Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Advocate, Mr. Amitabh Sinha, Advocate, Mr. Shrey Sharma, Advocate, Mr. K.V. Jagdishvaran, Advocate, Ms. G. Indira, Advocate, Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Himanshu Tyagi, Advocate, Ms. Eliza Bar, Advocate, Mr. Pai Amit, Advocate, Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Advocate, Ms. Anupama Ngangom, Advocate, Mr. Karun Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Mahesh Thakur, Advocate, Mr. Sharan Thakur, Advocate, Mr. Siddhartha Thakur, Advocate, Mr. Sibo Sankar Mishra, Advocate, Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Advocate, Mr. S. Prabhu Ramasubramanian, Advocate, Mr. Arun R. Pedneker, Advocate, Ms. Mukti Chowdhary, Advocate, Mr. Ravindra A. Lokhande, Advocate, Dr. Vidyottma Jha, Advocate, Ms. Ambika Atrey, Advocate, Dr. Abhishek Atrey, Advocate, Advocate, Advocate, Ms. Priyanka Prakash, Advocate, Ms. Beena Prakash, Advocate, Mr. G. Prakash, Advocate, Dr. Anindita Pujari, Advocate, Mr. Deval Singh, Advocate, Mr. Om Narayan, Advocate, Ms. Harpreet Kaur, Advocate, Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, Advocate, Mr. Rahul Raj Mishra, Advocate, Ms. Vishakha, Advocate, Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Advocate, Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate, AG Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, Advocate, Mr. Shaurya Sahay, Advocate, Ms. Tarini K. Nayak, Advocate, Mr. U. Mishra, Advocate, Mr. Shaurya Sahay, Advocate, Mr. K.V. Kharlyngdoh, Advocate, Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, Advocate, Mr. Karanvir Gogia, Advocate, Ms. Shivangi Singhal, Advocate, Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Sandeep Jha, Advocate, Ms. Garima Prashad, Advocate, Mr. Shadab Khan, Advocate, Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Advocate, Ms. Sweena Nair, Advocate, Ms. Swati Bhardwaj, Advocate, Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, Advocate, AAG Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, Advocate, Mr. Raja Rajeswaran, Advocate, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Aditya Chada, Advocate, Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, Advocate, Mr. Amit Kr. Singh, Advocate, Mr. Alnun Sanga, Advocate, Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, Advocate, Ms. Abhilasha Bharti, Advocate, Mr. Sushant Dogra, Advocate, Mr. Rahul Chitnis, Advocate, Mr. Sachin Patil, Advocate, Mr. Aditya A Pande, Advocate, Mr. Geo Joseph, Advocate, Ankit Goel, Advocate, Mr. Abhinav Kaushik, Advocate, Mr. R.K. Gupta. Advocate, Ms. Pragya Baghel, Advocate, Ms. Pallavi Langar, Advocate, Ms. Rachana Srivastava, Advocate, Mr. Ashutosh Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Raghvendra Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Anand Kumar Dubey, Advocate, Mr. Narendra Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Pulkit Agarwal, Advocate, Ms. Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Advocate, Mr. Pashupati Nath Razdan, Advocate, Mr. Palav Agarwal, Advocate, Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Varun Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Abhimanyu Tewari, Advocate, Ms. Eliza Bar, Advocate, Mr. Reginald Valsalan, Advocate, Mr. Kapil Joshi, Advocate, Ms. Manju Sharma Jaitley, Advocate, Ms. Sneha Kalita, Advocate, Ms. Garima Prashad, Advocate, M/S. Knc, Advocate, Ms. Astha Sharma, Mr. Narendra Kumar, Advocate, for the Appearing Parties

Points Of Law : If Remote Point Coordinator is not available on the day of the evidence of the witnesses being recorded for any reason, the Secretary, District Legal Service Authority shall act as the Remote Point Coordinator.

Headnote:
POCSO Act - Amicus Curiae - Trafficking cases - Counsel appearing for petitioner and advocates on record for three states mentioned above submitted a note in which he proposed recording of evidence of child witnesses in two cases - First case relates to FIR pending in POCSO Court-2 in which there are four child witnesses and four parents of said child witnesses who are residents - Amicus Curiae verified availability of infrastructure at with assistance of Registrar of High Court Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Public Prosecutor System Officer.
Finding of The Court :
Retired District Judge who has agreed to act as Remote Point Coordinator court are informed that recording of evidence is required relevant rules - Court dispense with that requirement in this case - If Remote Point Coordinator is not available on day of evidence of witnesses being recorded for any reason Secretary District Legal Service Authority shall act as Remote Point Coordinator - Court direct Presiding Officer POCSO Court-2 and Additional Sessions Judge Court to complete recording of evidence of witnesses through Video Conferencing in criminal cases arising out of FIR and FIR respectively within a period of weeks - States which have not responded are directed to furnish information sought for as mentioned above within a period of four weeks - States which have filed their affidavits without giving particulars are also directed to file additional affidavits giving details of child witnesses/victims of human trafficking.
Result : Order Accordingly

ORDER

1. On 01.12.2020, directions were issued to the States of Assam, Bihar and West Bengal to provide the necessary infrastructure for Video Conferencing facilities to enable the recording of testimonies of children who are either victims/ witnesses in human trafficking cases.

2. The learned Amicus Curiae after consulting Ms. Anitha Shenoy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and advocates on record for the three states mentioned above submitted a note in which he proposed recording of evidence of child witnesses in two cases. The first case relates to FIR No.20/2019 pending in POCSO Court-2, Jaipur in which there are four child witnesses and four parents of the said child witnesses who are residents of Gaya, Bihar. The learned Amicus Curiae verified the availability of infrastructure at Jaipur with the assistance of the Registrar of the Rajasthan High Court, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-1, Jaipur, Mr. Rakesh Maharshi Public Prosecutor, Mr. Ankur, System Officer. The learned Amicus Curiae has also obtained instructions from the Registrar, Patna High Court and the other concerned officers about the availability of infrastructure and internet connectivity at District Court, Gaya.

3. The learned Amicus Curiae also participated in a trial run which was held on 19.01.2021 and he is satisfied with the facility at Gaya District. We are informed that trial is ripe in the said case pending in POCSO Court-2, Jaipur. As suggested by the learned Amicus Curiae, we direct District Judge, Gaya and the Presiding Officer of POCSO Court-2, Jaipur to record the evidence of the four child witnesses and the four parents of the witnesses of the child witnesses through video conferencing. The District Judge, Gaya is directed to make available a room meant for examination of vulnerable witnesses in the court compound on the dates and time fixed by the POCSO Court-2, Jaipur for recording the evidence of eight witnesses.

4. Summons may be sent by POCSO Court-2, Jaipur through the process server, District and Sessions Court Gaya to the witnesses to appear before the Secretary, DLSA, Gaya on the date fixed for recording the evidence along with documents to prove their identity. Mr. Syed Ahmed, Additional District Judge (retired) shall act as the Remote Point Coordinator at Gaya and verify the identity documents of the witnesses. The Remote Point Coordinator is directed to render necessary assistance to the witnesses in case of any difficulty in the recording of evidence of the witnesses by Video Conferencing. An honorarium of Rs.1,500/- per day shall be paid to the Remote Point Coordinator by Bihar State Legal Service Authority.

5. The Presiding Officer POCSO Court-2, Jaipur shall ensure that the computer in the Court is placed in such a position that the witness can be seen by him, the prosecutor and the defense counsel. In case, there is a need for identification of the accused, the camera of the witness shall be switched off and the screen be turned to the accused person to enable the witness to identify him.

6. On completion of recording of evidence, the deposition shall be sent by POCSO Court-2, Jaipur on e-mail to the Secretary, District Legal Service Authority, Gaya who shall take a print out, read it out and explain to the witnesses abut the contents. The Secretary, District Legal Service Authority shall get the deposition signed by the witnesses. The Remote Point Coordinator is directed to put his signatures on the deposition, scan the same and send it back to the Presiding Officer POCSO Court-2, Jaipur by e-mail. In addition, the original deposition shall be sent by speed post.

7. Another case identified by learned Amicus Curiae for recording of evidence by video Conferencing pertains to FIR No.612 of 2018 PS. Khajuri Khas, Delhi. In the said case, the Court Point is the Additional Sessions Court Karkardooma and the Remote Point is Sitamarhi, Bihar where the child witnesses are residing. The directions issued in respect of th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2021 Supreme(SC) 910

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAL. Nageswara Rao, S. Abdul Nazeer, Indu Malhotra, JJ.In Re: Contagion Of Covid 19 Virus In Children Protection Homes - AppellantVersus. - RespondentSMW (c) No.4 of 2020 with W.P. (Crl.) No.274 of 2020 (PIL-W).Decided On : 21-01-2021

Points Of Law : If Remote Point Coordinator is not available on the day of the evidence of the witnesses being recorded for any reason, the Secretary, District Legal Service Authority shall act as the Remote Point Coordinator.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. Nageswara Rao, S. Abdul Nazeer, Indu Malhotra, JJ.
In Re: Contagion Of Covid 19 Virus In Children Protection Homes - Appellant
Versus
. - Respondent
SMW (c) No.4 of 2020 with W.P. (Crl.) No.274 of 2020 (PIL-W).
Decided On : 21-01-2021