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.

JUDGMENT :

Anoop Chitkara, J.

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 trial Court referred to General Principles governing video conferencing as well as the model rules of video conference and also asked a letter to be written to the concerned Embassy through the Ministry of Law and Justice to be sent through email requesting them to arrange the recording of the statements of witnesses through the electronic channel. Even the witnesses were also directed to approach the Indian High Commission/Embassy and get their statements recorded on 17.08.2024.

7. Further, vide the impugned order dated 04.09.2024, the trial Court disposed of an application filed by the complainant, mentioning that the witness could not get her statement recorded through the embassy. The complainant sought permission from the court to get their statements recorded through ordinary VC, i.e., through WhatsApp and other electronic channels and also submitted that they would prove their identity with the help of their passport and ID. The Court allowed such an application by permitting the witnesses to get their statements recorded through video conference, and the public prosecutor was asked to arrange the time and date for recording of such statements.

8. Aggrieved by permission to record the statement through ordinary video conference, i.e., WhatsApp or other electronic channels, and not through an embassy, the petitioner had now come up before this Court under Section 528 BNSS.

9. The counsel for the accused argued that if the witnesses appear through WhatsApp or another video conference, someone can impersonate them and they can be tutored. He submits that the witnesses’ statements should be recorded only through the office of the Indian embassy in the concerned country. Counsel further submits that rules for video conferences do not permit it and that statements have to be recorded only per the rules. He further submits that rules cannot be by-passed and have to be followed in letter and spirit, and for ready reference, video conferencing rules have been annexed at Annexure P-4.

10. As per sub-rule 5.3.1, for overseas persons, there is one Coordinator at remote point who is an official of an Indian Consulate/relevant Indian Embassy/the relevant High Commission of India when a witness or a person accused of an offence is to be examined.

11. However, rule 2(viii) of Video Conference Rules reads as follows:

“(viii) Exceptional circumstances” include illustratively a pandemic, natural calamities, circumstances implicating law and order and matters relating to the safety of the accused and witnesses.”

12. It would be appropriate to refer to rule 8.15, which reads as follows:

“8.15 Where a Required Person is not capable to reaching the Court Room or the Remote Point due to sickness or physical infirmity, or presence of the required person cannot be secure