Introduction

• This case deals with the evidence produced before the court through video conferencing.
• As we know the usage of technology is increasing day by day then the question comes under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, whether evidence can be recorded through video conferencing is admissible or not.

Facts

• In this case, the wife of the complainant was suffering from cancer, Dr. Greenberg was of the opinion that this can be operated on through medicines and there is no need for operation.
• Then the couple consulted with another doctor who was consulting surgeon and suggested the operation.
• After operation uterus was removed and the wife of the complainant died, on a complaint of the complainant a case was filed under Section 338/ 109/ 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• The Maharashtra Medical Council made an enquiry and held the respondent guilty.
• The prosecution requested to Dr. Greenberg for given his opinion and he was ready to give evidence, but he refused to come India and ready for the video conferencing.
• The trial court allowed video conferencing, but the High Court said evidence must be recorded in the presence of the accused.

Issues Involved

• Whether the evidence recorded through video conference can be admissible?
• Whether the term under Section 273 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1972 ‘physical presence’ means only actual presence in the Court?

Observations

• The Supreme Court observed that the High Court did not read Section 273 Cr.P.C. properly.
• Section 273 Cr.P.C. contemplates the constructive presence, and this shows actual physical presence is not a must.
• The evidence can be both oral and documentary and electronic recording which includes video conferencing.
• The first duty of the Court is to do justice and there would be failure of justice not only by unjust conviction but also by acquittal of guilty for unjustified failure to produced evidence.
• The law must adapt to the change in society and should accept the new technology.
• The Court further observed as far as the video conferencing concerned the essentials of Section 273 of Cr.P.C. can be met through video conferencing also.
• Recording of evidence through Video conferencing can also satisfy the object of Section 273 of Cr.P.C.
• If the witness is comfortable giving the evidence through video conferencing, then the officer will ensure that respondent and his counsel must be present in video conferencing.
• The court said the evidence which was given by Dr. Greenberg appears to be necessary to meet the ends of justice.
• The Magistrate has to take care that the witness answers properly and starts proceeding as far as possible.

Conclusion

• The Court finally held that the evidence can be recorded through video conferencing and the presence under Section 273 Cr.P.C. does not only mean physical presence but also virtual presence, hence the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court.

Notes

Section 273 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Evidence to be taken in presence of accused - Except as otherwise expressly provided, all evidence taken in the course of the trial or other proceeding shall be taken in the presence of the accused, or, when his personal attendance is dispensed with, in the presence of his pleader.