Indian killed abroad, SC says examine doc who did postmortem
AmitAnand.Choudhary@timesgroup.com
New Delhi:19.04.2019
The Supreme Court has said that geographical distance should not come in the way of examining a witness in a criminal case and courts must take all steps to record the statement of a witness who resides in a foreign country and video-conferencing facilities must be used.
A bench of Justices A M Sapre and Dinesh Maheshwari directed a trial court in Rajasthan to take all necessary measures to ensure the examination of a Nigeria-based doctor in the case of a woman who died in mysterious circumstances in the African country. The woman’s parents have accused her husband of murdering her.
The woman was living with her husband in Nigeria where she was found hanging from the ceiling fan in her room in 2010. The first postmortem examination of the body was conducted by Dr I Yusuf who stated that the cause of death was “asphyxia secondary to strangulation”.
Pendency of case for about 8-9 years is not desirable: SC
Thereafter, the body was brought to India where a medical board was constituted for further postmortem examination but the board said no definite opinion could be formed regarding the time and cause of death.
The woman’s parents then filed a criminal complaint against the husband and alleged that she was being tortured for dowry.
After investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the husband for the offences of murder and cruelty. The parents thereafter filed an application to summon Dr Yusuf and said his testimony was essential to find the cause of death.
The trial court and the Rajasthan high court dismissed their plea and said it was not necessary to record the doctor’s statement as a copy of the postmortem examination report prepared by him had already been exhibited. The courts also took the view that the case was pending for eight years and recording the doctor’s statement would further delay the trial.
The Supreme Court, however, quashed the orders of the trial court and the high court said the doctor’s testimony was necessary to decide the case.
The court said since Dr Yusuf lived in Nigeria, in order to avoid inconvenience to him as also to the parties, recording his evidence through video-conferencing appeared to be a viable alternative.
“The trial court needs to take all requisite steps so as to ensure that his evidence comes on record with least inconvenience and/or burden to the parties and the witness,” the Supreme Court said.
“Though it is expected that the trial of a sessions case should proceed with reasonable expedition and pendency of such a matter for about 8-9 years is not desirable, but then the length/ duration of a case cannot displace the basic requirement of ensuring a just decision after taking all necessary and material evidence on record. In other words, the age of a case, by itself, cannot be decisive of the matter when a prayer is made for examination of a material witness,” the court added.
The length/ duration of a case cannot displace the basic requirement of ensuring a just decision after taking all necessary and material evidence on record — SC The court said since Dr Yusuf lived in Nigeria, in order to avoid inconvenience to him as also to the parties, recording his evidence through video-conferencing appeared to be a viable alternative
AmitAnand.Choudhary@timesgroup.com
New Delhi:19.04.2019
The Supreme Court has said that geographical distance should not come in the way of examining a witness in a criminal case and courts must take all steps to record the statement of a witness who resides in a foreign country and video-conferencing facilities must be used.
A bench of Justices A M Sapre and Dinesh Maheshwari directed a trial court in Rajasthan to take all necessary measures to ensure the examination of a Nigeria-based doctor in the case of a woman who died in mysterious circumstances in the African country. The woman’s parents have accused her husband of murdering her.
The woman was living with her husband in Nigeria where she was found hanging from the ceiling fan in her room in 2010. The first postmortem examination of the body was conducted by Dr I Yusuf who stated that the cause of death was “asphyxia secondary to strangulation”.
Pendency of case for about 8-9 years is not desirable: SC
Thereafter, the body was brought to India where a medical board was constituted for further postmortem examination but the board said no definite opinion could be formed regarding the time and cause of death.
The woman’s parents then filed a criminal complaint against the husband and alleged that she was being tortured for dowry.
After investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the husband for the offences of murder and cruelty. The parents thereafter filed an application to summon Dr Yusuf and said his testimony was essential to find the cause of death.
The trial court and the Rajasthan high court dismissed their plea and said it was not necessary to record the doctor’s statement as a copy of the postmortem examination report prepared by him had already been exhibited. The courts also took the view that the case was pending for eight years and recording the doctor’s statement would further delay the trial.
The Supreme Court, however, quashed the orders of the trial court and the high court said the doctor’s testimony was necessary to decide the case.
The court said since Dr Yusuf lived in Nigeria, in order to avoid inconvenience to him as also to the parties, recording his evidence through video-conferencing appeared to be a viable alternative.
“The trial court needs to take all requisite steps so as to ensure that his evidence comes on record with least inconvenience and/or burden to the parties and the witness,” the Supreme Court said.
“Though it is expected that the trial of a sessions case should proceed with reasonable expedition and pendency of such a matter for about 8-9 years is not desirable, but then the length/ duration of a case cannot displace the basic requirement of ensuring a just decision after taking all necessary and material evidence on record. In other words, the age of a case, by itself, cannot be decisive of the matter when a prayer is made for examination of a material witness,” the court added.
The length/ duration of a case cannot displace the basic requirement of ensuring a just decision after taking all necessary and material evidence on record — SC The court said since Dr Yusuf lived in Nigeria, in order to avoid inconvenience to him as also to the parties, recording his evidence through video-conferencing appeared to be a viable alternative
No comments:
Post a Comment