Supreme Court allows examination of witness residing in Nigeria through video-conferencing

Referring to Sections 284 and 285 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Supreme Court has allowed the recording of statement of a witness residing in Nigeria, through video-conferencing..The judgment was passed by a Division Bench of Justices AM Sapre and Dinesh Maheshwari in an appeal against an order of the Rajasthan High Court. The High Court had upheld the rejection of an application under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code, seeking summoning of one Dr. I Yusuf through High Commission of Nigeria in order to record his evidence through video-conferencing..The case pertained to the death of the accused person’s wife under unnatural circumstances in Nigeria. She was found hanging from the ceiling fan in her room. It was the prosecution’s case that the deceased was regularly harassed for dowry..The first post-mortem of the dead-body was conducted by Dr. I Yusuf in Aminu Kanu Teaching Hospital, Nigeria on January 16, 2010. Upon examination, he opined that the cause of death was “asphyxia secondary to strangulation”..However, when the dead body was brought to India, the Medical Board which was constituted for further post-mortem stated that no definite opinion could be formed regarding the time and cause of death of the deceased..After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused husband for the offences under Sections 302, 304-B and 498-A of IPC but Dr. I Yusuf was not cited as a witness..In the trial, the prosecution led its evidence and various witnesses were examined but the members of the Medical Board were unable to give any definite opinion as to the cause of death. Therefore, the mother of the deceased moved an application under Section 311 CrPC for issuance of summons to Dr. I Yusuf as a medical witness..The trial court, however, rejected the application observing that since the matter was pending since 2010 and the photocopy of the post-mortem report prepared in Nigeria was available on record, it was not necessary to record the statement of Dr. I Yusuf..The Rajasthan High Court also ruled against the deceased’s mother under its Section 482 CrPc jurisdiction. It observed that in the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the discretion exercised by the trial court called for no interference..Arguing before the Supreme Court, the counsel for the mother of the deceased strenuously argued that the trial court, as well as the High Court, failed to appreciate the relevance of the evidence of Dr. I Yusuf and that his testimony is essential to arrive at a just decision in this case..The appellant also objected to the relevance attributed to the fact that trial was pending for about 8 years. The counsel argued that it was not “a judicious approach to the case” and the trial court should, in fact, ensure that the material evidence comes on record so as to arrive at a just conclusion..The Court observed that the discretionary power, like those under Section 311, is intended to ensure that every necessary and appropriate measure is taken by the Court to keep the record straight, clear any ambiguity with respect to any evidence and ensure that no prejudice is caused to anyone..After perusing the facts of the case, it concluded that the testimony of Dr. I Yusuf was germane to the questions involved in this matter. It remarked that the trial court and the High Court overlooked and ignored the material and relevant aspects of the case..The Court stated that for a just decision, with adequate opportunity to both the parties to put forward their case, the application under Section 311 CrPC ought to have been allowed..The length/duration of a case cannot displace the basic requirement of ensuring the just decision after taking all the necessary and material evidence on record, it further said..Further referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai (2003), the Court stated that to avoid inconvenience to the witness and the parties, issuing of commission and recording evidence of Dr. Yusuf through video-conferencing appears to be a viable alternative in the present case..It thus observed that the trial court should have “unquestionably taken recourse to the provisions of Sections 284 and 285 CrPC so as to avoid the delay in the matter and inconvenience to the parties and the witness.”.Allowing the appeal, the Court directed the trial court to take all the necessary measures for ensuring the examination of Dr. Yusuf by issuing commission and/or recording his statement through video-conferencing..It also directed the trial court to ensure expeditious proceedings and conclude the matter at the earliest..Read the Judgement below.