DEEPA @ GEETHA Vs. MADHU AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is cited as CW.11 (PW.2- victim) in Special C.C. No. 567/2014, has challenged the order dated 01.03.2018 passed by the L-Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. The said order reads as under:

(2.) The above said order discloses that the learned Public Prosecutor filed an application under Section 284 of Cr.PC. r/w. section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act along with certain documents and sought for examination of CW.11 through Video Conference. But the Sessions Judge has in one sentence rejected the said application stating that he has perused the application. No grounds, hence, the application was rejected. This type of orders are expected by a Judicial Officer. Whenever application is filed, the Judge has to apply his mind to the contents of the application and find-out whether there are any reasonable grounds to consider the application and thereafter, logically and legally dispose of such application, by providing reasons, in accordance with law.

(3.) In this particular case, as could be seen from Annexure-E, a copy of the application filed by the learned Public prosecutor, which is running about 9 paragraphs, wherein at Para-4, the learned Public Prosecutor has explained the grounds for recording evidence of CW.11 through Video Conference method. He has also given details of the circumstances under which the application is filed. Not only that, he has also cited several rulings in the application itself as to under what circumstances the court can permit recording of the evidence through Video Conference. But, without even looking the contents of application, it appears the learned Sessions Judge in a very cryptic manner, passed the impugned order. In my opinion, such an order is not sustainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also cited a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 476/2003 (State of Maharashtra and P.C. Singh v. Dr. Praful B. Desai and another decision reported in AIR 2003 SC 2053 . In the above said rulings, the Hon'ble Apex Court has in detail discussed the circumstances under which the evidence through Video Conference can be recorded and who has to bear the cost, etc. But these are all the important legal and factual aspects totally lost sight of the learned Sessions Judge, who passed the impugned order.