THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus DR. PRAFUL B. DESAI AND ANR.

Citation: [2003] 3 S.C.R. 244 · Decided: 01-04-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.N. VARIAVA · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
v. 
DR. PRAFUL B. DESAI AND ANR. 
APRIL I, 2003 
[S.N. VARIA VA AND B.N. AGRA WAL, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 273, 274, 275 and 284 lo 
289/Penal Code, 1860; Sections 338 r/w Sec/ions 109 and 114: 
Criminal Trial: 
Video Conferencing-Recording of evidence of witnesdwilnesses-
Ad1~1issibili1y of-Held: electronic records includes records by video 
conferencing-A II requisites of recording of evidence would be ful~l' met with 
D by s11ch recording of evidence-Hence, evidence recorded by video conferencing 
is admissible in ci·idence. 
Recording of evidence by video conferencing-Absence of accused-
Ejfect of-Held. ii-hen prol'ision of law for recording of ei·idence allows 
recording of ei·idence in the presence of !'leader. it does no/ affect the 
E admissibility of evidence so recorded 
Recording of ei•idence by video confem1cing-Conditions of-Held: The 
coun/J)' in Hhich el'idence of witness would be recorded should have extradition 
treaty with India and in that countrv conlempl of court and pe1jury are 
punishable-Evidence Act~)ection J-Constitution of India, 1950; Article 
F 21. 
Video conferencing-Exam in at ion of witnesses-Procedure-Disrnssed 
Interpretation of Statutes: 
G 
Examination of witnesses· on commission vis-a-vis Examination of 
H 
witnesses hy video conferencing in foreign coun//y-Analogy hetween-
Discussed. 
Doctrines: 
Doctrine "Co11te111pora11ea exposition es/ optima e1ji1rtissmm ''·-Afea11ing 
244 
-
-
l 
} 
I 
I 
' 
STATEOFMAHARASHTRA v.DR.PRAFULB.DESAI 
245 
. and applicability of in the context of Criminal Procedure Code, I 973. 
A 
Words & phrases. 
'virtual reality', 'ongoing statute' and 'presence '-Meaning of in the context 
of Section 273 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 
According to the prosecution, the deceased, wife of the complainant 
was suffering from terminal cancer. She was exam'ined by the doctor of a 
hospital in USA who opined that she was inoperable and should be treated 
only with medication. Complainant-husband sought second opinion from 
B 
the respondent, a Surgeon in India. lnspite of knowledge regarding the 
opinion of th~ doctor in USA he had suggested for operation. As per advice, C 
another doctor had performed operation on the complainant's wife. The 
operation was not so successful and she died after some time. Husband of 
the deceased filed a complaint against the respondent and another doctor. 
Trial Court issued the process which was challenged by the respondents 
up to the Apex Court. On dismissal of challenge, respondents faced trial. D 
At the time of recording of evidence, Prosecution filed an application 
seeking permission of the Court to examine the Doctor in USA by video 
conferencing, which was allowed by the Trial Court. However, criminal 
application was filed by the aggrieved respondents challenging the 
recording of evidence of the Doctor in foreign country by video 
conferencing and it was allowed by the High Court. Hence the present E 
appeals by the State and the Comp!ainant. 
It was contended for the respondents that since the Code of Criminal 
- Procedure has laid down a specific procedure for criminal trial and 
legislature could only change the procedure by amendment, any departure F 
therefrom would be con1rary to Article 21; that since the procedure laid 
down in Section 273 of Criminal Procedure Code is mandatory and it does 
not provide for recording of evidence by video conferencing, it must be 
given its contemporary meaning; that Section 273 is analogous to the 
confrontation clause in the US Constitution. However, Courts in USA have 
held that video conferencing docs not satisfy the requirements of the G 
confrontation clause; and that since the procedure of recording of evidence 
by video conferencing involves 'virtual reality', it does violate the rights 
of the respondents under Article 21. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
246 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2003] 3 S. C.R. 
A 
HELD: I.I. High Court has rightly held that Section 273 Cr.P.C. is 
mandatory and that evidence must be recorded in the presence of the 
accused. However, the High Court has failed. to read Section 273 properly. 
One does not have to consider dictionary meanings when a plain reading 
of the provision brings out what was intended. It provides for dispensation 
B from personal attendance. In such cases evidence can be recorded in the 
pre$ence of the pleader. The presence of the pleader is thus deemed to b
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.