Video conferencing for witness evidence satisfies criminal procedure requirements when constructive presence and cross-examination safeguards are ensured.

Section 273 of the Code of Criminal Procedure permits evidence to be recorded by video conferencing because the accused's constructive presence, with the accused or counsel able to see, hear, and cross-examine the witness in real time, satisfies the statutory requirement of presence. The Code is to be read as an ongoing statute in light of technological change, and electronic recording remains a procedure established by law when safeguards are in place. The commission procedure under Sections 284 and 285 can also be used for video-conferenced evidence, with safeguards for oath, effective cross-examination, and prevention of misuse.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, in a criminal trial, evidence may be recorded through video conferencing consistently with Section 273 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (ii) Whether the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 permits recording of evidence by video conferencing through the procedure of commission.

Issue (i): Whether, in a criminal trial, evidence may be recorded through video conferencing consistently with Section 273 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: Section 273 requires evidence to be taken in the presence of the accused, except as otherwise expressly provided, but that requirement is satisfied when the accused or his pleader is effectively present through video conferencing. The provision contemplates constructive presence and does not insist upon literal physical presence in all cases. Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 recognizes electronic records as evidence, and modern technology enables a witness to be seen, heard, and cross-examined in real time. The Court treated the Code as an ongoing statute that must be construed in light of current technological conditions, and held that the procedure remains one established by law when video conferencing is used with appropriate safeguards.

Conclusion: Evidence may be recorded by video conferencing and such recording satisfies Section 273 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issue (ii): Whether the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 permits recording of evidence by video conferencing through the procedure of commission.

Analysis: Sections 284 and 285 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 permit examination of a witness on commission where attendance cannot be procured without unreasonable delay, expense, or inconvenience. The Court held that this mechanism can accommodate recording by video conferencing, with the local court officer deputed to administer oath, ensure the presence of the accused and counsel, secure effective cross-examination, and prevent coaching or other misuse. Practical difficulties such as time differences, interruptions, and control over the witness were held manageable by procedural safeguards, and the cost of video conferencing was directed to be borne by the State.

Conclusion: The Code permits recording of evidence by video conferencing through the commission procedure, subject to safeguards.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside, and the trial court was directed to record the witness's evidence by video conferencing and proceed with the trial expeditiously.

Ratio Decidendi: The requirement that evidence be recorded in the presence of the accused is satisfied by constructive presence through video conferencing, and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 must be interpreted as an ongoing statute in light of technological developments, permitting electronic recording of evidence with safeguards.

---