Kerala High Court Suggests Use Of Advance Technologies To Reduce Stress Of Judges Writing Down Witness Depositions In Trial Courts

A single judge bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas in its order observed:

"In this context, this Court is compelled to observe that with the advent of modern technology, including artificial intelligence, it is high time that the trial courts are equipped with sufficient infrastructure to take down the deposition of witnesses by resorting to the latest technology. Though writing depositions in own handwriting may enable the court in its analytical process, the benefits of using modern technology will far outweigh such limited advantages. The laborious and time-consuming process of Judges writing down witness depositions is indeed archaic and even stressful. The plight of the judicial officers indulging in writing down long depositions, cannot be ignored, especially when advanced technologies are available".

The court made the observations while hearing a man's plea–convicted by the Sessions Court in a murder case–who had approached the High Court seeking legible copies of the witness depositions which are on the files of the sessions court.

The High Court noted that Rule 56A(2)(b) of the Criminal Rules of Practice permits the evidence of each witness be taken down through dictation onto a mechanical or electronic device. Section 311 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita also permits the Sessions Court to record evidence of witness by dictation in open court. It noted that the high court had also by way of a 2017 circular had permitted all Courts to record the evidence of the witness through dictation in open court.

The court thereafter said, "However, technology has advanced even further. From recording the evidence of witnesses through the dictation of the Presiding Officer, technology is now available to convert speech to text simultaneously as the evidence is being taken. If such modern technology is applied in courts, delays while recording the evidence can be avoided. The concept of digital recording and transcription of depositions, or the use of speech-to-text software or similar technologies are required to be implemented in the trial courts without further delay".

The High Court observed that due to the long hours spent in taking down depositions, it is "only normal" for handwritten texts to become illegible or indecipherable. It further said that recording evidence through dictation is also time consuming. The Court observed that this can affect the administration of justice and can even prejudice the trial. 

"Hence, it is time that Courts, especially the trial courts, update their resources to include advanced technologies. Appropriate training must also be provided to the Judicial Officers to enable them to use the advantages of technology. The Registry of the High Court, must earnestly explore the possibility of equipping the trial courts in the State, with such advanced technologies to bring a change to the archaic practices. Appropriate training must also be provided through the Judicial Academy to promote the use of such modern technologies," the high court said. 

As per Rule 262 of the Kerala Criminal Rules of Practice, a readable copy of the depositions is prepared when the trial court files are transmitted to the High Court. Such copies were already prepared in this case as the petitioner had challenged his conviction before the High Court once. The Appeal was dismissed. The Petitioner submitted that he intended to file an appeal before the Supreme Court and needed the readable copies for that purpose.

The Registry (Judicial) informed the High Court that the trial court records were returned to the trial court. The petitioner had applied before the Sessions Court for the certified copies of the readable copies of the deposition prepared. However, the application was rejected by the Sessions Court saying that the rules do not permit the issue of readable copies.

The High Court held that when readable copies are prepared, it should be given to parties when they apply for it, especially when the original deposition is not readable. The Court added that there is no use in denying such copies which have already been prepared.

“Non-decipherable depositions would not advance the cause of justice and on other hand, such illegible copies of depositions can cause prejudice to the accused.”

The Court however added that parties cannot insist on preparation of a readable copy of deposition. They can apply for such copy only if such copies are already prepared and the originals are available in the file.

Disposing of the plea, the high court directed the sessions court to provide certified copy of the original readable depositions in the case as and when applied for, provided, the original readable copies are available in the file. 

Case Title: Vaisakh @ Hari v State of Kerala and Others

Counsel for the Petitioner: Advocates Ahalya Prakash K. V., K. K. Subitha, Meghana Manoj

Counsel for the Respondents: Public Prosecutor Adv. C. N. Prabhakaran

Case No: W.P. (Crl.) 1011 of 2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 607