Karnataka High Court Declines Request for In-Person Testimony of Judge Witness in Criminal Case, Stating Virtual Cross Examination Unbiased to Accused
Case Title: Mahadev And State of Karnataka
Case No: Criminal Petition No 200953/2023
Date of Order: 11-08-2023
CORAM: HON’BLE Justice Venkatesh Naik T.
INTRODUCTION
The petition submitted by a defendant requesting the personal attendance of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Vijayapura (currently stationed in Bengaluru), for the purpose of cross-examination as a witness in his case, rather than utilizing video conferencing, has been rejected by the Karnataka High Court.
FACTS
It is claimed that on June 27, 2017, when the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC in Vijayapura was performing her official duties, the accused entered her office with the intention to argue, verbally abused her, and used threats to intimidate her. Following a complaint from the State, the police initiated legal proceedings against the accused and submitted a charge sheet containing charges under sections 353, 448, 504, and 506 of the IPC. During the trial, five witnesses were presented by the prosecution.
At this point, the accused submitted a request to have PW5 (the Judicial officer) reexamined. The trial Court granted this request partially, allowing the witness to be recalled for cross-examination through video conferencing.
The petitioner contended that to adequately present the information gaps during cross-examination, it’s necessary for PW5 to be physically present before the Court.
COURT’S ANALYSIS
The panel made reference to the exception in Section 275(1) of the CrPC, which states that testimony from a witness under this subsection can also be captured using Audio-Video Electronic methods, with the accused person’s lawyer present.
Additionally, the bench relied on the regulations for conducting court proceedings via video conferencing as established by the High Court. They stated, “Considering the guidelines provided in the aforementioned regulations and given the circumstances of the current case, the collection of testimony from PW5 through video conferencing is permissible, as per the amendment introduced in Sub-Section (1) of Section 275 of the Cr.P.C. in 2008.”
Consequently, the court rejected the plea.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Shreya Sharma