Exclusive HOLI Discounts!
Get Courses and Combos at Upto 50% OFF!
Upgrad
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

N.K.Assumi (Advocate)     23 February 2010

Compulsion for giving evidence in ourt

Is there any provisions that can compelled a doctor residing outside India to come to India for giving evidence?

What procedure is to be adopted  in such matters? Is video conferencing the answer to this issue?



Learning

 2 Replies


(Guest)
The State Of Maharashtra VS. Dr. Praful B. Desai CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 476 of 2003 Appeal (crl.) 477 of 2003 PETITIONER: The State of Maharashtra P. C. Singhi RESPONDENT: Dr. Praful B. Desai Dr. Praful B. Desai and another DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/04/2003 BENCH: S.N. Variava & B.N. Agrawal Giving a new dimension to criminal law, the Supreme Court has held that recording of evidence of a witness, even those residing abroad, by video-conferencing is permissible. A Bench, comprising Justice S.N. Variava and Justice B.N. Agrawal, held that video-conferencing satisfied the object of Sec. 273 Cr.P.C. that evidence be recorded in the presence of the accused. The Bench set aside a judgment of the Bombay High Court, which quashed a trial court's order allowing video-conferencing of evidence of a doctor in the United States. In this case, the wife of a retired civil servant, P.C. Singhi, suffering from terminal cancer, was examined by Dr. Ernest Greenberg of Sloan Kettering Memorial Hospital, New York, who opined that she was inoperable and should be treated only with medication. But in Mumbai, two Indian doctors, Praful B. Desai and A.K. Mukherjee, ignored Dr. Greenberg's advice and she was operated on, resulting in her death. On a complaint from Mr. Singhi against the two doctors, the trial court ordered recording of the evidence of Dr. Greenberg by video-conferencing. But this was struck down by the High Court. Both Mr. Singhi and the Maharashtra Government filed appeals in the apex court against this judgment. Allowing the appeals, Justice Variava, writing the judgment for the bench, said ``in cases where the attendance of a witness cannot be procured without an amount of delay, expense or inconvenience, the court could consider issuing a Commission to record evidence by way of video-conferencing.'' ``Normally, a Commission would involve recording of evidence at the place where the witness is. However, advancement in science and technology has now made it possible to record such evidence by way of video-conferencing in the town/city where the court is.'' The Bench, however, said as a matter of prudence, evidence by video-conferencing in open court should be resorted to only if the witness was in a country that had an extradition treaty with India and under whose laws contempt of court and perjury were punishable. It said the presence of the accused and/or his pleader when evidence was recorded by video-conferencing would fully meet the requirements of Sec. 273 Cr.P.C. The Bench pointed out that during video-conferencing, the accused would be able to see the witness better than he/she might have been able to if he/she was sitting in the dock in a crowded court room. Further, the facility of playback would be an added advantage while cross-examining the witness. The witness could be confronted with documents or other material or statement in the same manner as if he/she was in a court. The Bench directed the trial court to set up a Commission and take the help of the Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited in recording the evidence of Dr. Greenberg by video-conferencing in the presence of the two doctors

N.K.Assumi (Advocate)     23 February 2010

Thank you Ajitabh, for coming out with the right  citation.


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register