LexSUJOYMITRA versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2015] 14 S.C.R. 920 SUJOYMITRA v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL (Criminal Appeal No. 1620 of 2015) DECEMBER 02, 2015 [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.278 - Rape case - Recording of testimony of prosecutrix through video C conferencing - Complainant prosecutrix-PW5 a citizen of Ireland filed a complaint against appellant alleging rape - Four witnesses examined before examining PW5- Trial court accepted prayer to record testimony of PW5 through video conference - Appellant challenged the procedure adopted D by trial court, while recording the statement of PW5 through video conferencing by filing petition u/s.482 Cr.PC. - High Court laid down procedure for recording such statement- In the instant appeal, appellant alleged that the procedure postulated by High Court was not fair to him- Held: In addition E to the steps and safeguards provided in the impugned order, following procedure should be adopted, while recording the statement of PW5- State of West Bengal to make provision for recording the testimony of PW5 in trial Court by seeking the services of the NIC for installing the appropriate F equipment for video conferencing - Before recording her statement, the Embassy to nominate a responsible officer, in whose presence the statement would be recorded - The officer so deputed shall ensure and affirm to the trial court that there is no other person besides the concerned witness, G in the room, in which the testimony of PW5 is be recorded - In case, the witness is in possession of any material or documents, the same shall be taken over by the officer concerned in his personal custody - The statement of the witness shall be recorded in consonance with the provisions H 920 SUJOY MITRA v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL 921 of s. 278-At the culmination of the recording of the statement, A the same shall be read out to the witness in the presence of the accused- The transcript of the statement of the witness recorded through video conferencing shall be scanned and dispatched through email to the Embassy-At the embassy, the witness will authenticate the same in consonance with B law - The said authenticated statement shall be endorsed by the officer deputed by the Embassy- It shall be scanned and returned to the trial court through email- The statement signed by the witness at the Embassy, shall be retained in its custody in a sealed cover - The statement received by C the trial court through email shall be re-endorsed by the trial Judge - The instant statement endorsed by the trial Judge, shall constitute the testimony of PW5, for all intents and purposes - Appellant's plea that recording of the video- graphic testimony of the witness should be furnished to the o appellant is rejected- These parameters have to be adopted to record the testimony of PW5, in addition to the procedure and safeguards provided for in the impugned order. State of Maharashtra vs. Dr. Praful B. Desai (2003) 4 SCC 601 - referred to. E Case Law Reference (2003) 4 SCC 601 referred to. Para 6 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JUSRISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1620 of 2015. · From the Judgment and Order dated 17.06.2015 of the High Court at Calcutta in CRR No. 1285 of 2015. F Basant R., Sr. Adv., Manoj V. George, Francis Samson Correa, Arvind Kumar Singh, Siju Thomas, RohitAdlakha (For G Zulfiker Ali P. S. ), Advs. for the Appellant. Joydeep Mazumdar, Rohit Dutta, Parijat Sinha, Advs. for the Respondent. H 922 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14 S.C.R. A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The appellant before this Court is an accused, who is facing trial in ST No. 1 (8) of 2014 arising out of Kalighat police B station Case No. 164/2013 dated 1.6.2013, inter alia, under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant in the above case is a citizen of Ireland, resident in Dublin. Four witnesses were examined by the trial Court before examining the prosecutrix-PW5. The trial Court accepted to record the C testimony of the prosecutrix, through video conference. 3. The appellant before this Court raised a challenge to the procedure adopted by the trial Court, while recording the statement of PW5 on various grounds, by filing a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned D Single Judge of the High Court of Calcutta, disposed of Criminal Revision No. 1285 of 2015,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.