New Delhi (BW): The Delhi High Court, on Friday, held that allowing the recording of evidence of a foreign citizen, through two-way video-conferencing would not amount to denying the petitioners’ right to fair trial. The Court further held that denial of the same may amount to denial of fair right of access to justice to the victim.
Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma heard a plea under Section 482 of CrPC preferred by persons accused of gang rape to seek physical presence of the prosecutrix for her examination and cross examination. The plea was preferred after the Additional Sessions Judge had declined their earlier application.
Arguments on behalf of petitioner
The counsel for the accused persons argued that effective cross-examination on behalf of the accused, without interruptions which can arise through means of video-conferencing, is an important right of the accused which is to be protected by the courts of law. It was further submitted that Courts have the power to record the reactions, tone and demeanour of the witnesses, which is important to be considered during cross-examination of a witness.
Arguments on behalf of State
The additional public prosecutor on behalf of the state argued that since the prosecutrix was a foreign citizen and her examination and cross examination could take place by way of video conferencing as per law laid down by the Apex Court.
After hearing the submissions, the Court observed that, “Recording of evidence of the prosecutrix, in the present case, through means of two-way video-conferencing, while following the directions and guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in judicial precedents mentioned above, and by this Court in „High Court of Delhi Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts 2021‟, will effectively and adequately ensure that the testimony of the victim is recorded as per law and is subjected to rigorous adversarial testing by way of cross-examination.”
“The trauma of testifying in a sexual assault case of a foreign citizen in another country, in this Court’s opinion, is a sufficiently critical factor to justify the use of video conferencing facility instead of face-to-face confrontation,” the Court noted.
The Court refused to allow the plea of the petitioners.
