Back
ANOOP CHITKARA
Kulvir Ram @ Mati – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
The legal document concerns a case in the Punjab and Haryana High Court involving the recording of witness statements via video conferencing. The appellant challenged the trial court's decision to permit witnesses to give statements through ordinary video conferencing methods such as WhatsApp, instead of through official embassy channels, citing concerns about impersonation and procedural adherence. The court examined the relevant rules governing video conferencing, including provisions for exceptional circumstances like health issues or logistical difficulties, and emphasized the importance of facilitating justice in a manner that minimizes hardship for witnesses (!) (!) (!) .
The court recognized that witnesses expressed difficulties in traveling to the Indian embassy and preferred to appear via accessible electronic means. Considering these circumstances, the court upheld the trial court’s decision, finding it justified and in line with procedural rules, especially given the safety measures and identity verification protocols in place. The court stressed that the video conferencing should be conducted in a manner that ensures proper identification and prevents tutelage or coercion, such as covering most of the room to prevent tutoring and verifying identities through the same contact details used for communication (!) (!) .
Overall, the court disposed of the petition, affirming that recording witness statements through ordinary video conferencing was lawful and appropriate under the circumstances, provided safety and verification measures were maintained. The judgment underscores the courts' flexibility in procedural matters to ensure justice is accessible and practical, particularly during circumstances that warrant exceptions to standard procedures.
JUDGMENT :
Anoop Chitkara, J.
| FIR No. | Dated | Police Station | Sections |
| 43 | 02.05.2018 | Sadar Nawanshahar | 452, 324, 109 IPC |
1. Aggrieved by the trial Court permitting witnesses to appear through video conference through WhatsApp or other electronic channel, the accused has come up before this Court seeking quashing of impugned order dated 04.09.2024.
2. Notice served upon the official respondent(s) through State counsel.
3. The nature of the order this court proposes to pass is such that no response is required from the complainant or the State.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State of Punjab. I have also gone through the pleadings, and their analysis would lead to the following outcome.
5. Vide order dated 18.07.2024, the trial Court has decided on an application to record the statement of witness Sunita Rani through video conference. The Court also noted that another witness, Jaspal’s statement/cross examination, is yet to be recorded. The Court also directed procurement of photocopies of the witnesses’ passports and permitted both witnesses to appear through VC as per the rules and regulations of the Court.
6
The court upheld the trial Court's decision to allow witness statements via ordinary video conferencing, emphasizing accessibility and the need for justice without undue hardship.
The court confirmed video conferencing for evidence recording aligns with modern judicial practices despite legal challenges on witness presence.
The statement of an overseas witness can be recorded through video conferencing, as per the guidelines laid down by the court for the conduct of court proceedings between courts and remote sites.
The court allowed the relaxation of video conferencing rules enabling a complainant abroad to record evidence, emphasizing the role of discretion to avoid undue hardship in legal proceedings.
Judicial endorsement of video conferencing for evidence collection is mandated, emphasizing modern practices should not be obstructed by technicalities.
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.
The court affirmed the right of a plaintiff in custody to present evidence via video conferencing, emphasizing the importance of access to justice.
The court upheld the right to record evidence via video conferencing for parties residing abroad, emphasizing adherence to the Video Conferencing Rules-2020 and the necessity for judicial considerati....
The court ruled that a petitioner facing threats and health issues must be allowed to record evidence via video conferencing, ensuring fair trial rights.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
