Introduction
The Supreme Court has issued a landmark directive to close a procedural gap in virtual trials. When witnesses testify via video conferencing, courts must electronically send their prior written statements to them. This ensures that witnesses can meaningfully respond to their earlier testimony.
In a judgment delivered on November 17, a bench led by Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta ruled that trial courts must transmit prior inconsistent statements to virtual witnesses. The Court said this step is vital for the accused to mount a fair cross-examination.
Facts Of The Case
The case is Raj Kumar @ Bheema vs State of NCT of Delhi. In that matter, the sole eyewitness testified from abroad via video link. The defence could not physically present her earlier statement. As a result, the cross-examination suffered. The Court noted this as a “procedural irregularity” that hurt the defence’s ability to challenge the testimony.
To solve this, the justices directed trial courts to use electronic transmission when a witness is giving evidence remotely. If a prior written statement or other document exists, the court must send it to the witness before or during their testimony. The Court referred to relevant statutory provisions under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. Specifically, it stressed that courts should follow Sections 147 and 148 in their literal sense. These correspond to Sections 144 and 145 of the Indian Evidence Act.
What Court Says
The Supreme Court underlined that this order promotes fairness, integrity, and effective cross-examination. The judges observed that denying the defence access to such documents in a virtual setting undermines these foundational principles of criminal justice. They added that this rule will help avoid procedural lapses and prevent any party from being disadvantaged.
In its judgment, the Court acquitted the accused. It found that the failure to send the witness’s previous statement had tilted the balance against the defence. The ruling reinforces that even in digital trials, trial courts must protect a defendant’s right to confrontation.
Implication
The implications of this ruling are significant. First, it sets a clear requirement for all trial courts conducting virtual proceedings. They must now ensure that witnesses testifying via video conferencing receive their earlier statements electronically. Second, this decision elevates procedural fairness in the digital age. It recognizes that cross-examination loses teeth if a witness cannot access prior statements. Third, by linking this procedure to existing legal provisions in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, the Court gives courts a concrete legal basis to implement the rule.
Legal professionals and judges will now need to adapt their practices. Courts must institute mechanisms for secure electronic transmission of documents to witnesses. Advocates will likely request copies of prior statements more consistently, knowing the Court requires their production and transmission. The defense can insist on this new safeguard to ensure meaningful cross-examination.
In effect, the Supreme Court has modernized an important part of trial procedure. It has recognized the challenges posed by virtual testimony and closed a loophole that disadvantaged the defence. By mandating electronic transmission of prior statements, the Court has strengthened fair trial rights. This ruling paves the way for more robust, just virtual trials.
