The case of State of Maharashtra vs Praful B. Desai is considered as the foundation stone for video conferencing being admitted as Evidence in the Court of law as per the provisions of CrPC and Evidence Act.
The Court while discussing the same held that Section 273 of CrPC when provides for the personal attendance, it does not specifically mean actual physical presence. It can be a deemed presence and the presence of the pleader can be considered as the presence of the accused. The Court referring to the Section 3 of Evidence Act held that Evidence can be both oral and Documentary and electronic records can also be produced under evidence. So the concept of video conferencing falls under the domain of electronic records, even in criminal matters.
The Court differentiated between the actual reality and virtual reality. The Court said that in virtual reality we feel something which is not there in actual. Virtual reality is a state where one is made to feel, hear or imagine what does not really exist. For example, we can feel cool while it is hot, we can hear the sound of the ocean while sitting in the mountains. This is the virtual reality but the video conferring is not the virtual reality but it is actual reality and Video conferencing is an advancement in science and technology which permits one to see, hear and talk with someone far away, with the same facility and ease as if he is present before you i.e. in your presence. In video conferencing both parties are in the presence of each other. So so long as the Accused and/or his pleader are present when evidence is recorded by video conferencing that evidence is being recorded in the “presence” of the accused and would thus fully need the requirements of Section 273, Criminal Procedure Code. The court even observed that recording of such evidence would be as per “procedure established by law” and satisfy Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court further said that even when the equipment cannot be set up in the Court it can be done under Commissions as per Section 284 to 289 of the CrPC.
The Court in the case of Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. vs AES Corp held that when an effective consultation can be achieved by electronic media and remote conferencing it is not necessarily required that the two persons must necessarily sit together at one place unless it is the requirement of law or the contract governing the situation.
These cases show that Video Conferencing has opened the gate for the new domain of Litigation and ODR (Online Dispute Resolution) which is considered as the Future Justice Dispensation System. The case of Praful Desai opens the gate of Video conferencing as an admissible evidence and as admissible process in Court of law, this has also been reflected during the pandemic where the Video Conferencing and electronic media has played a very Pivotal role in justice delivery where litigations, Lok Adalats and various ODRs are held online.
About author –
This article is authored by Vineet Tayal , B.A., LL.B. (Hons.) Institute of Law, Nirma University, Ahmedabad.
