IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS WEDNESDAY, THE 17^TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 26TH ASHADHA, 1946 OP(CRL.) NO. 93 OF 2024 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 06.01.2024 IN SC NO.345 OF 2023 OF FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT II, THRISSUR PETITIONERS:

XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX BY ADVS.

RAJIT AJAIY BASKAR RESPONDENTS:

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

2 THE REGISTRAR GENERAL HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031

3 PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003

4 THE FAST TRACK SPECIAL JUDGE -II COURT OF FAST TRACK COURT, THRISSUR, PIN - 680003

5 STATION HOUSE OFFICER TOWN EAST POLICE STATION, THRISSUR, PIN - 680001

6 XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX BY ADV G.HARIKUMAR (GOPINATHAN NAIR)

OTHER PRESENT:

SRI. ASHI M.C (PP)

THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON

17.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. -----------------------------------------

O.P.(Crl) No. 93 of 2024 ----------------------------------------

Dated this the 17th day of July, 2024 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the mother of the victim in S.C.No. 345 of

2023, on the files of Fast Track Special Court-II, Thrissur. She challenges an order dated 06-01-2024 rejecting her application to record evidence of the victim through videoconferencing.

2. The accused is the victim's own father and is facing prosecution for various offences including those under the POCSO Act. Petitioner alleges that she and her daughter are presently residing in Germany and that they are unable to come down to India to give evidence. Contending that the Electronic Video Linkage Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021, (for short the Rules) enable the evidence to be recorded through video conferencing, an application was filed for examining the victim through video conferencing. However, by the impugned order, the trial Court dismissed the application after observing that there is no facility for video conferencing in that court to record the evidence.

3. Since the petitioner had impleaded the High Court of Kerala as the second respondent and has also sought directions to ensure that necessary infrastructure is provided for enabling the recording of depositions through video conferencing, a counter affidavit has been filed on its behalf. The second respondent states that the Electronic Video Linkage Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021, was notified on 25-08-2021, as per which, several courts in the State have been provided with the facility for video conferencing. It is also stated that Fast Track Special Court-I, Thrissur, has the required facility. The second respondent has also informed through its counter affidavit that though the impugned order was issued on 06-01-2024 by the Fast Track Special Court-II, Thrissur, subsequently, by an Administrative Order, the petitioner's case has already been made over to the Fast Track Track Special Court-I, Thrissur, with effect from 12-01-2024 and hence there is no disability in recording of deposition through video conferencing, provided appropriate applications are submitted in that regard as contemplated under the rules.

4. I have heard Sri. Rajit, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Adv. G. Harikumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the High Court of Kerala, apart from Sri. Ashi M.C., the learned Public Prosecutor. Though notice was served on respondent No.6, there is no appearance.

5. In the decisions in State of Maharashtra v. Dr.

Praful B. Desai [(2003) 4 SCC 601, the Supreme Court permitted evidence to be taken through video conferencing, especially in cases where the witness is unable to attend the court in person due to factors like location, health or safety concerns. In the decision in Hotel Sagar v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner [(2021) 6 KLT 633], this Court observed that cross-examination of witnesses in ph