P&H High Court Allows Plea Of Man Stuck In Canada To Record Evidence Via VC Mode Noting 'Strained' Indo-Canada Diplomatic Relations

Considering the strained diplomatic relations between India and Canada, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has directed the trial court to allow the recording of evidence through video conferencing for a complainant who is a resident of Canada.

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar observed, "The recourse to record evidence through video conferencing is all the more necessary when the attendance of a witness cannot be procured physically and any delay would affect the progress of the trial, which would cause great hardship and inconvenience to the witness by travelling a long distance to depose."

The Court further added that the evidence of the petitioner being complainant is necessary for the pursuits of justice and the mechanism of fair trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution is not only available to the accused but it exists for the complainant victim as well and depriving an opportunity to the petitioner to depose through video conferencing, who is stuck in Canada due to a diplomatic standoff between India and Canada, would be violative of his right to free and fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. 

While noting that the High Court has framed rules for recording evidence through video conference, it noted that, "Rules have been framed by this Court, examination of the witnesses through video conferencing should be encouraged, which would expedite the trial and would reduce the unnecessary footfall in the court premises."

It further said that recording evidence through video conferencing would be more convenient and less traumatic for children, women and victims of abuse, much less, differently-abled persons who cannot attend physical hearings in the courtrooms conveniently.

The Court was hearing a petition under Section 482 CrPC, filed by Sukhmanjit Singh Dhindsa challenging the order of a Civil Court which rejected the application to allow him to record his statement through video conferencing.

The petitioner was a complainant in a case filed under Section 408 IPC and stated to be a permanent resident of Canada. an application was filed by the learned additional public prosecutor for recording the statement of the petitioner through a video conferencing facility.

It was submitted that the trial Court initially allowed the application vide and directed recording evidence of the petitioner as per the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the State of Maharashtra Vs. Dr. Praful B. Desai 2003 (2) RCR (Criminal) 770. However, evidence of the petitioner could not be recorded through the Coordinators at the Indian and Canadian Embassy due to frayed diplomatic relations between both countries at that time.

The petitioner once again requested the trial Court by filing an application, however, the said application was dismissed.

Subsequently, the counsel for the petitioner sought adjournment on the ground that the diplomatic relationship between India and Canada were strained and therefore, he was not able to get a visa to visit India to record his evidence. The trial Court granted adjournment only for two weeks without considering the ongoing diplomatic standoff between the Indian and Canadian governments and the fact that the petitioner was not in a position to travel to India.

Thereafter, the Trial Court closed the evidence of the prosecution by order and posted the case for recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

Considering the submissions, the Court referred to High Court rules "Part H, Volume V, Chapter 1-H on Model Rules on Video Conferencing and said that 'Exceptional Circumstances' under which video conferencing facility can be utilised include a pandemic, natural calamities, circumstances implicating law and order and matters relating to the safety of the accused and witnesses.

Reliance was also placed upon the State of Maharashtra Vs. Dr. Praful B. Desai [2003 (2) RCR (Criminal) 770] and Sucha Singh Vs. Ajmer Singh and another [2018 (3) RCR (Civil) 327] Supreme Court's decision wherein it allowed to record evidence on video conferencing because the witness was in a foreign country.

Considering the strained diplomatic relations between India and Canada owing to which the petitioner would not be in a position to procure a visa and travel to India and the fact that closing of the evidence by order would cause grave prejudice to the petitioner being the complainant and render undue advantage to the accused, the Court allowed the plea.

While disposing of the petition, it also issued a slew of directions to record the statement of the petitioner-complainant.

Appearance: Shivya Sehgal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Navreet Kaur Barnala, AAG, Punjab for state.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 279

Title: Sukhmanjit Singh Dhindsa v. State of Punjab and others

Click here to read/download the order