The Supreme Court of India, while acquitting a man in a 2008 murder case, has issued significant, binding directions to all trial courts to ensure the “fairness and integrity” of evidence recorded via video conferencing (VC).
A Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, hearing the case of Raj Kumar @ Bheema v. State of NCT of Delhi, addressed a “procedural irregularity” that arose when a witness, deposing from abroad, could not be properly cross-examined with her previous written statement.
To prevent such prejudice, the Court has mandated that trial courts “shall ensure” copies of relevant documents, like prior statements, are electronically transmitted to the witness before they are confronted during cross-examination.
The Procedural Issue
The case involved the testimony of Smt. Indra Prabha Gulati (PW-18), the sole injured eyewitness, who was deposing via video link from Canada nearly eight and a half years after the incident.
During cross-examination, the defense counsel attempted to confront her with her initial police statement (Exh. PW-17/A) to highlight material contradictions and omissions, such as her failure to mention a chheni (chisel) or the assailant’s “black shirt” at the first instance.
However, the trial court deferred its decision on this procedure, noting in its order: “(it will be looked by the court during the arguments as the witness is being recorded through video-conferencing).”
The Supreme Court observed that the trial court, in its final judgment, “do not find any discussion” on this “pertinent objection by the defence,” leading to a procedural flaw.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Mandate
The bench held that the advancement of technology should not put any party at a disadvantage. The Court stated, “None of the parties should be put to a dis-advantage merely because the witness is not in attendance before the Court, and the document/previous statement in writing with which such witness is sought to be confronted, cannot be shown/put to him.”
The Court referred to Section 148 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (corresponding to Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872), which provides that if a witness is to be contradicted by a previous written statement, “his attention must… be called to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him.”
To ensure this is followed in virtual proceedings, the Supreme Court issued a clear directive:
“Therefore, we hereby clarify and direct that in every case where, it is proposed to record the statement of a witness over video conferencing… the trial Court shall ensure that a copy of the statement/document is transmitted to the witness through electronic transmission mode and the procedure provided under Section 147 and Section 148 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam… is followed in the letter and spirit…”
The Court stated this direction was being issued to “safeguard the fairness and integrity of the trial” and “uphold the principles of fair trial, effective cross-examination, and proper appreciation of evidence.”
Context: The Acquittal
This procedural direction was issued in an appeal filed by Raj Kumar @ Bheema, who was challenging his life sentence for the 2008 murder of Madan Mohan Gulati.
The Supreme Court ultimately acquitted the appellant, setting aside his conviction. The bench found the prosecution’s case fatally weakened by several factors, including:
- “Extremely Unlikely” Identification: The dock identification of the appellant by PW-18 after 8.5 years via video link was found to be “unsafe to rely upon” and “does not inspire confidence.”
- “Fundamentally Flawed” TIP: The Test Identification Parade (TIP) was held to be under a “serious cloud of doubt,” particularly as PW-18 emphatically denied in her testimony that she had ever gone to the Patiala House Courts to participate in any such proceeding.
- Failed Recoveries: The recovery of a blood-stained pant was deemed insufficient as the blood group could not be matched, and other allegedly “robbed articles” were never identified in court by the witness or her son (who was not examined).
Concluding that no “substantive or credible evidence remains on record,” the Court set aside the judgments of the High Court and trial court, acquitting the appellant after he had spent nearly 15 and a half years in custody.
