Back
2020 Supreme(P&H) 1760
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Jaishree Thakur, J.
Kanwal Raj Sachdeva And Others - Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab And Others - Respondent
CRM-M No. 30911-2017 and CRM-M No. 10492-2018
Decided On : 13-02-2020
Mr.B.D.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM-M30911 of 2017 and for the respondent No.3 in CRM-M10492 of 2018., Mr. Sidakmeet Singh Sandhu, Asstt. A.G. Punjab., for petitioner in CRM-M-10492 of 2018., Mr.Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the Respondent No.1 and 2, in CRM-M-10492 of 2018
Video conferencing can be used to record evidence, ensuring the accused's presence and meeting legal requirements, as established by relevant Supreme Court judgments.
Headnote:
Video Conferencing - Criminal Procedure - Section 482 Cr.P.C. - 406, 498-A - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The petitions challenge the order declining the application for examining a witness through video conferencing in a case involving dowry harassment and misappropriation of Stridhan articles.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the physical presence of the witness for examination was not necessary in all cases, and allowed the application for recording the witness's evidence through video conferencing, citing relevant Supreme Court judgments.
Issues: The main issue was whether the witness could be allowed to give evidence through video conferencing due to her inability to travel to India.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Supreme Court's interpretation of video conferencing as a valid method for recording evidence, ensuring the accused's presence and the fulfillment of legal requirements.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the application for examining the witness through video conferencing was allowed, with the accused given adequate opportunity to cross-examine the witness. The trial court was directed to follow the procedure laid down by the Supreme Court in a relevant judgment.
JUDGMENT
Jaishree Thakur, J. (Oral). - These two petitions have been filed seeking to challenge the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalandhar dated 06.06.2017 whereby the application filed on behalf of the prosecution for examining Ms.Upasna, one of the witnesses, through video conferencing has been declined. Aggrieved against the said order, the State being the Prosecutor as well as the complainant have preferred these two petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
2. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR No.08 dated 26.05.2012 came to be registered under Section 406, 498-A at Police Station NRI Jalandhar City, District Jalandhar by Kanwal Raj Sachdeva s/o Sh.Tilak Raj Sachdeva stating that his daughter Upasna had been married to one Rocky Bhalla on 23.11.2009 according to the Hindu rights and ceremonies. She had been tortured by her in-laws on account of insufficient dowry and that she was compelled to bring more dowry than what had been given. There are also allegations that the dowry/ Stridhan articles that had been given at the time of marriage, were misappropriated by the family members of her husband. During the pendency of the trial before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalandhar, an application was filed to summon Ms.Upasna as witness which application was allowed. However, since Ms.Upasna was a resident of Australia and was unable to visit India, an application was preferred seeking liberty for her to appear as witness through video conferencing which stands rejected.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant Kanwal Raj Sachdeva would contend that the order as passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jalandhar would not be sustainable in the light of the judgement rendered in State of Maharashtra Vs. Dr.Praful B. Desai and another, 2003(2) RCR (Criminal) 770 wherein, the Supreme Court in a particular matter had permitted recording of evidence by way of video conferencing. It is also submitted that the principle as settled has also been followed by our own High Court. It is argued that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents herein since ample opportunity would be allowed to the respondents-accused to cross examine the witness apart from putting any document to her that they choose to do so. A similar argument has been raised by the State counsel in the petition.
4. Per contra learned counsel on behalf of the respondents-accused would argue that the witnesses ought to be present in person so that there is an ample opportunity is there to the respondents herein to cross examine her, while further arguing that she was never cited as a witness at the first instance and also that no adequate reason have been given in the petition for her non appearance as a witness in person.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the case file as well as the judgement relied upon. Admittedly, the complaint had been filed by the father of the said witness Ms.Upasna with allegations that she had been tortured in her matrimonial house by her in-laws and that there was a demand of dowry apart from mis appropriation of the Stridhan articles given. The said witness is not currently in India and the reason given for her not being able to travel is that she is awaiting her permanent residence status, apart from citing a reason that she would be put to big inconvenience and great expenditure in case she is directed to be present in person.
6. The law regarding summoning of a witness and allowing the said witness to give evidence by way of video conferencing has been gone into by the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Dr.Praful B. Desai and another(suvm) wherein it has been held that the physical presence of a witness for the purpose of examination would not be necessary in all cases. Para 19 of the said judgement is reproduced as under:-
19. At this stage we must deal with a submission made by Mr Sundaram. It was submitted that video-conferencing could not be
