Virtual Cross Examination Doesn't Prejudice Accused: Karnataka HC Refuses To Order Physical Presence Of Judge Appearing As Witness In Criminal Case

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by an accused seeking physical presence of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Vijayapura (now posted in Bengaluru) for cross examination as a witness in his case, instead of via video conferencing.

A single judge bench of Justice Venkatesh Naik T. sitting at Kalaburagi said recording of evidence through video conferencing is permissible in view of proviso to Section 275(1) of CrPC, as amended in 2008.

It also noted that trial Court had also refused to recall the judicial officer for the purpose of cross-examination in-person on the ground that she is working in Bangalore City and it is not possible for her to travel all the way from Bangalore to Vijayapura.

“Therefore, the trial Court in order to save the Court time as well as PW5 (Judicial Officer), adopted a new scientific method, to mitigate the workload of Courts. Further, if PW5 cross examined through virtual mode, it does not affect rights of the accused,” Court said.

It is alleged that on June 27, 2017, while Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Vijayapura was discharging public duty, the accused entered her Chamber to quarrel with, abused her and intimidated her. On the basis of State's complaint, the police registered a case against the accused and filed a charge sheet for offences punishable under sections 353, 448, 504 and 506 of IPC. The prosecution examined  5 witnesses.

At this juncture the accused filed an application for recall of PW5 (Judicial officer). The trial Court allowed the application in part and recalled her to tender cross-examination through video conferencing.

The petitioner argued that in order to facilitate him to put forth the fact under lacuna during cross-examination, it is required to keep present PW5 in-person before Court only.

The bench referred to proviso to Section 275(1) CrPC which provides that evidence of a witness under this Sub-Section may also be recorded by Audio-Video Electronic means in the presence of the Advocate of the person accused of the offence.

It also relied on rules of video conferencing for Courts framed by the High Court and said, “In view of the procedures laid down in the aforesaid rules and in the facts and circumstances of the present case, recording of evidence of PW5 through video conferencing is permissible, in view of proviso to Sub-Section (1) to Section 275 of Cr.P.C., (Amendment) Act, 2008.”

Accordingly, it dismissed the petition.

Case Title: Mahadev And State of Karnataka

Case No: Criminal Petition No 200953/2023

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 324

Date of Order: 11-08-2023

Appearance: Advocate Ganesh Naik for Petitioner.

HCGP Gururaj V Hasilkar for Respondent.

Click Here To Read/Download Order