SC/ST Act | Victim's Request To Record Trial Proceedings Can't Be Dismissed Even If Sexual Offences Are Involved: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has recently ruled that when a victim of offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act makes a request to video record the trial proceedings, a court cannot turn it down even if sexual offences are involved. Justice Kauser Edappagath noted that Section 15A(10) of the Act which permits video-recording of all proceedings is...
The Kerala High Court has recently ruled that when a victim of offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act makes a request to video record the trial proceedings, a court cannot turn it down even if sexual offences are involved.
Justice Kauser Edappagath noted that Section 15A(10) of the Act which permits video-recording of all proceedings is in consonance with Section 327(2) of CrPC which provides for in-camera trial in cases involving sexual offences since both of them were enacted to protect the interests of the victim.
"Sub-section (10) of S.15A of the SC/ST Act confers statutory right on the victim to get all the proceedings relating to the offences under the Act to be video recorded. The rejection of the request of the victim/prosecution to video-record the court proceedings would go against the legislative mandate which specifies the rights of the victim and witnesses."
The Judge also laid down that the impugned order was against the spirit of the Apex Court's directive that the judiciary must keep pace with emerging trends of technology.
"We are living in a digital era. The globalization, new communication system and digital technology have made dramatic changes in the way we are living. The Apex Court of India has pro-actively adopted technology to make the judicial process more accessible, transparent and simple...recent judgments of the Apex Court also indicates the willingness of the Indian Judiciary to adapt to technology for the advancement of justice."
The prosecution had made a request before the Sessions Court to video-record the trial proceedings in a case under the SC/ST Act. This request was supported by the affidavit of the victim.
However, the Sessions Court dismissed the petition holding that it is unusual and unnecessary to video-record court proceedings and that there are no facilities in the Court to video-record the proceedings. Further, it was held that since the offences alleged involve Section 376 of IPC as well, the trial has to be conducted in camera.
Aggrieved by this, the State moved the High Court.
Additional Director General of Prosecution Grashious Kuriakose submitted that as per Section 15A(10) of the Act if a petition is moved by the victim or prosecution with the prayer to video-record the court proceedings, the Court is bound to allow it.
The Court noted that Section15A (10) specifically says that all proceedings relating to the offences under this Act shall be video recorded. It was observed that the term "all the proceedings" found in Sub-section (10) includes court proceedings as well.
Further, Section 327(2) of CrPC (trial of sexual offences shall be conducted in camera) is intended to protect the anonymity of the victim while Section15A(10) of SC/ST Act is also intended to protect the interest of the victim.
As such, it was held that if a victim makes a request to video-record the court proceedings relating to the offences under SC/ST Act invoking Section 15A(10), it cannot be turned down on the ground that the offences charged against the accused involve sexual offences fall under Section 327(2) of Cr.P.C. as well.
"The anonymity of the victim in such cases can be adequately protected and safeguarded in the recordings via dummy names, face masking or pixelation as and when directed by the Court. The recording shall be maintained for usage by the Court and the appellate Court and access to the recording need not be given to the victim or the accused unless specifically ordered by the Court."
Regarding the security of such recorded videos, Justice Edappagath found that the Electronic Video Linkage Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021 provide adequate measures to secure the recorded data by administrative password, which will be within the exclusive knowledge of the concerned Judge only.
Moreover, the report of the High Court's IT Director suggested that the video recording facility was available and functioning in the unit installed at the trial court.
As such, the impugned order was set aside and the petition was allowed. The Sessions Court was therefore directed to video-record the entire trial proceedings in the case.
Case Title: State of Kerala & Nowfal
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 103