ANWAR KHAN Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is a witness in the murder case of his employer with whom he was working as driver. As per the prosecution he is an eye witness and he has to depose in the case. However, the petitioner submits that there is a threat to his life and it may not be possible for him to go to the court and depose. For this reason, he moved an application stating that he should be examined on commission. This application is rejected by the lower court as well as the High Court. It would be difficult to issue the Commission to record the evidence of the petitioner as it is to be recorded in the presence of the accused persons and they have also a right of cross-examination. Therefore, even if the order or commission is issued and the Commissioner records the evidence, it has to be in the presence of the accused persons.

(2.) In the aforesaid circumstances a query was made by this Court as to whether video conferencing facilities are available at Indore so that the petitioner could be examined by video conferencing. We are informed that in fact video conferencing facilities are available in Indore where the trial is taking place i.e. Additional Sessions Judge (12th), Indore and also in the District Court, Udaipur.

(3.) In view of the aforesaid circumstances, it would be possible for the petitioner to go to the District Court at Udaipur on the date fixed by the Trial Court to facilitate recording of the evidence of the petitioner through video conferencing.