IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.
Vinod Kumar & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
State (NCT) of Delhi) & Anr. - Respondents
Cr.M.C. 9100 of 2023 & Crl. M.A. 33976 of 2023
Decided On : 22-12-2023.
JUDGMENT
INDEX TO THE JUDGMENT
FACTUAL BACKDROP IMPUGNED ORDER CONTENTIONS RAISED BEFORE THIS COURT WHETHER THE IMPUGNED ORDER VIOLATES THE MANDATE OF `HIGH COURT OF DELHI RULES FOR VIDEO CONFERENCING FOR COURTS 2021'? WHETHER PERMITTING THE PROSECUTRIX TO TESTIFY VIA TWO-WAY VIDEO-CONFERENCING WILL VIOLATE THE ACCUSED'S RIGHT TO FAIR TRIAL? A. Judicial Precedents And Directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court Qua Vulnerable Witnesses: How the Journey Started B. Recording of Evidence of Vulnerable Witnesses: Scheme of Delhi High Court. C. Judicial Precedents Qua Recording of Evidence of Witnesses Through Video-Conferencing D. Embracing the Technology while Balancing the Rights of Accused and Victim in a Criminal Trial E. Evidence via Video-Conferencing viz.-a-viz Recording of Demeanour of Witness F. Whether an `Educated Woman Hailing From Developed Country' Cannot Be Covered Under the Definition of `Vulnerable Witness'? CONCLUSION |
Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.
1. The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr.P.C.') has been filed on behalf of the petitioners, seeking quashing and setting aside of order dated 09.12.2023, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (SFTC)- New Delhi, Patiala House District Courts, New Delhi, in Sessions Case No. 379/2019.
2. The petitioners Vinod Kumar and Rajesh Kumar, who are facing trial in an alleged case of gang rape alongwith one another accused Anil Kumar, seek direction from this Court, to the learned Trial Court, to compel the physical presence of the prosecutix for her examination and cross-examination.
FACTUAL BACKDROP
3. The sequence of events, prompting the filing of present petition before this Court, is that a complaint was received by the office of Senior Superintendent of Police, District Kangra, Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh, by the prosecutrix `X', aged about 23 years, a citizen of United States of America, who had disclosed that she had arrived in India, at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, Terminal 3, from Chicago, USA, on 15.05.2019 at 6:40 pm. It was further stated in the complaint that she had to catch a flight from Delhi to Dharamshala at 6:30 am on the next day i.e. 16.05.2019, and thus, she had slept overnight at the airport. However, the next morning, she had unfortunately missed her flight to Dharamshala. After receiving her luggage from the concerned airlines, the prosecutrix had stepped out of the Airport, where she had encountered two persons i.e. `Lal Singh' and `Kumar' (as mentioned in the complaint),who had represented themselves as taxi drivers and had offered to help her in getting a bus ticket for Dharamshala. The prosecutrix had accordingly sat in their vehicle, and after about 5-10 mins, they had stopped the car near a market and had got a bus ticket for her, for which she had paid them Rs.10,000/- and USD 20. Thereafter, these two persons had convinced the prosecutrix that since the bus was scheduled to leave from Kashmere Gate at 6:50 pm, she should stay in a hotel as it was 10:30 am in the morning. Thereafter, they had taken her to a hotel in Vasant Kunj New Delhi. It is alleged that these accused persons had entered the room of the prosecutrix, and had then committed rape upon her. One of these accused had also taken the ring that was worn by the prosecutrix. Thereafter, in the evening, they had offered to drop the prosecutrix at Kashmere Gate, and on their way, the prosecutrix had contacted LHA Charitable Trust at Mcleodganj, Himachal Pradesh and had made accused namely `Kumar' to talk to that person. Thereafter, the accused persons had dropped the prosecutrix near Patiala House Courts and from there, she had travelled in a taxi to Kashmere Gate. On boarding the bus, she had found that the bus ticket handed over to her by the accused persons was fake. It is stated that thereafter, she had to board an ordinary bus for Dharamshala, and she had reached her destination in the morning of 17.05.2019. On 20.05.2019, the prosec
State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh
State of Maharashtra v. Bandu @ Daulat
State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai
Sujoy Mitra v. State of West Bengal
State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh
State of Maharashtra v. Bandu @ Daulat
The court affirmed that video conferencing is permissible under the Criminal Procedure Code for recording evidence, ensuring the right to a fair trial for complainants unable to appear physically.
The court confirmed video conferencing for evidence recording aligns with modern judicial practices despite legal challenges on witness presence.
The rejection of a minor victim's request for video conferencing testimony was overturned to ensure the protection and dignity of vulnerable witnesses under the POCSO Act, highlighting the judiciary'....
The POCSO Act mandates the protection of minor victims during trials, allowing testimonies via video conferencing to ensure psychological safety and prevent exposure to the accused.
The court affirmed that video conferencing for witness testimony must comply with both High Court rules and mutual legal assistance guidelines, ensuring the witness's identity is verified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.