Accused Can’t Be Convicted For Charge Which Is Not Framed By Trial Court: Karnataka HC
Principle:
The right of legal assistance during trial or evidence is part of the fundamental principle of fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. When a witness or an accused gives evidence via video conferencing, the Court held that the counsel (advocate) has the right to be physically present with the party/witness at the remote point.
This ensures that:
The witness/accused is not under pressure or undue influence.
The counsel can advise the party in real-time.
The sanctity of cross-examination and examination-in-chief is maintained.
The party’s right to effective legal assistance is not diluted merely because the medium of evidence is electronic.
Key Case Laws:
State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai (2003) 4 SCC 601
Landmark case where the Supreme Court first recognized that video conferencing is an acceptable mode of recording evidence under Section 273 CrPC.
The Court clarified that “presence” does not necessarily mean physical presence in the courtroom, but the party/witness can appear virtually.
However, safeguards must be maintained to ensure fairness.
Santhini v. Vijaya Venketesh (2017) 14 SCC 721
Concerned with recording evidence via video conferencing in matrimonial disputes.
The Supreme Court emphasized that the comfort and fairness of proceedings must be ensured, and the presence of counsel is integral to that fairness.
Supreme Court’s later clarifications (2020–2022 during COVID-19 period)
The Court issued guidelines that when evidence is taken via video conferencing, the advocate of the party must be allowed to remain with the party at the remote point (like in jail, or in another state/country).
This prevents any apprehension that the witness is being tutored or intimidated.
Why Counsel’s Physical Presence is Important:
The right to effective legal representation is part of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) and Article 22 (Right to legal aid in criminal trials).
If a party is forced to give evidence over video without their lawyer being present, it would amount to denial of fair trial.
The Court thus directed that video conferencing rooms at remote points should allow counsel to physically accompany the party.
Example Situation:
Suppose an accused is in jail in Delhi and trial is in Mumbai. His evidence is to be recorded via video conferencing. In that situation, his defense lawyer must be allowed to sit with him in the Delhi jail’s video conferencing room while he testifies, instead of only appearing in the Mumbai courtroom.
✅ In summary: The Supreme Court has held that while evidence can be recorded via video conferencing, the party’s counsel is entitled to be physically present with the party at the remote point. This is to protect the constitutional right to a fair trial, ensure effective legal representation, and avoid prejudice.
RELATED Blog
0 comments