@N.K. Assumi. Kind regards. I have gone through the judgment a little bit after it is quoted by you. My view is the work between judges may be divided in such a way that the judges who can read well may be called "reading judges" who only deal with file, and judges who possess skill to hear and examine may be called "hearing judges", and they only deal with court hearings, though have access to file but have brief idea about subject. This division of work may save time of courts much better. What is recorded during hearing is given to the "reading judge" and he decides case accordingly. If hearing can be conducted even by Commissioners appointed by court, I feel the hearing judge can be of lower rank and the reading judge can be of higher rank. The reading judge who is of higher rank may give the assignment to the junior judge the way he wishes to obtain the proceedings of hearing on specified lines instead of asking junior judge to go through file. I do not know practical difficulties, some new idea.
To what extent demeanour of the witnesses play its role in deciding about the veracity of the deposition is not known, when after the Examination in Chief and Cross examination is complete, the witness is given the copy of what is recorded and asked to confirm by way of signature whether what is stated by him during EIC and CE is true and correct. If he has any objections, he is also allowed to offer his objections to what is recorded as being said/admitted by him during the course of examination. That being the case, it makes no difference whether he is examined inside court or outside court by anyone as opined in the said judgment.
You see hearing means fundamentally the judgment based on body language and demeanor only. In the given set up, even if the judge knows by instincts that the witness deposing is lying 100 percent, how far he can reject that deposition is not known to me. Entire written part may go off in one stroke in some case if the judge decides that the prime witness is lying. If that is system, then hearing is OK. Otherwise what is the purpose of hearing? Are we ready to hear the victim directly and give justice to him reading his demeanor vis-a-vis the demeanor of the offender? No. That is actually purpose of hearing. To read the body language, demeanor etc and arrive at judgment as to who is possible victim and who is possible offender. When everything can be rejected when presented on paper for the purpose of confirmation, what purpose it serves?
Even otherwise, hearing is meant for recording evidences, examination, cross examination and re-examination. Rest of all is paper work only. If that (recording evidences, examination, cross, reexamination etc) is outsourced what is there for judge to do in hearings?