New Delhi: For the first time in the country's history of criminal jurisprudence, the Supreme Court has held that evidence of a witness staying in a foreign country can be recorded by trial courts through video conferencing.

Interpreting section 273 of Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) in the light of advancement made by technology, a Bench comprising justice S N Variava and justice B N Agrawal said recording of evidence through video conferencing by the trial Judge, complainants and advocates with an important witness staying abroad would be perfectly legal.

This judgement came in a case where a Mumbai trial court had allowed video conferencing of a US-based doctor, who had opined against operation of a cancer patient. However, ignoring the advice, two India doctors operated the lady leading to her death.

The Bombay High Court had struck down the trial court order saying it was not permissible under Section 273 laying down the procedure for recording of evidence.

The US-based doctor, Ernest Greenberg, while refusing to come to India, had expressed his willingness to give evidence through video conferencing.

The husband of the deceased, P C Singhi and Maharashtra government had appealed against the High Court in the Supreme Court.

The two Indian doctors facing trial in the case are Praful B Desai and A K Mukherjee. The prosecution had alleged that these doctors post operation did not examine her properly and she suffered a lot before her death.

Allowing recording of evidence by video-conferencing, justice Variava, writing the judgement for the Bench, said, "In cases where the attendance of a witness cannot be procured without an amount of delay, expense or inconvenience, the court could consider issuing a commission to record evidence by way of video conferencing.

"Normally a commission would involve recording of evidence at the place where the witness is. However, advancement in science and technology has now made it possible to record such evidence by way of video conferencing in the town/city where the court is," he said.

Referring to the chances of witness abusing the trial judge during video conferencing, the apex court said, "As a matter of prudence, evidence by video-conferencing in open court should be only if the witness is in a country, which has an extradition treaty and under whose laws contempt of court and perjury are also punishable."

The court then directed the Mumbai court to set up a commission and take help of Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited (VSNL) in recording evidence of US-based doctor through video conferencing in the presence of the two accused doctors. The court also allowed the two accused to cross-examine Dr Greenberg.

PTI