Gopal Chandra Bose vs State & Ors

Court
Delhi High Court

$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 08.10.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 27.10.2026
Judgment uploaded on: 27 . 10.2026
# CNR No. DLHC011555052014
+ TEST.CAS. 105/2014
GOPAL CHANDRA BOSE .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rohan Khanna, Advocate

versus

STATE & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Abhinav Singh, Ms. Pearl
Khurana and Mr. Shantanu
Patel, Advocates for GNCTD
Ms. Shumaila, Advocate for R-
3 and R-7
Mr. Rajeshwar Kumar Gupta,
Advocate for R-4

CORAM:
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
JUDGMENT
DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J

I.A. 5080/2026 (seeking permission to cross examine PW-6
through VC)
1. The present application has been filed by the applicant seeking
permission for conducting cross-examination of PW-6, Smt. Krishna
Sen, aged about 71 years, through video conferencing, as the matter
TEST. CAS. 105/2014 Page 1 of 10


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:27.10.2026
18:54:48

is listed before the learned Joint Registrar for her cross-examination.
2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant
submits that the present matter is at the stage of cross-examination of
PW-6, Smt. Krishna Sen. It is submitted that PW-6 is about 71 years
of age, resides in Uttarakhand and is suffering from age-related
health conditions, on account of which she has been specifically
advised rest by her doctor. It is, therefore, contended that she is
unable to appear physically before this Court for her cross-
examination. The learned counsel further submits that PW-6 has
already travelled to Delhi on three occasions and had remained
present for her cross-examination on 05.11.2024, 10.02.2025 and
24.07.2025. However, her cross-examination could not take place on
any of the said dates. It is submitted that on 05.11.2024, an
adjournment had been sought by the learned counsel for the
respondent on account of the latter‟s illness; on 10.02.2025, the Court
was on leave; and on 24.07.2025, the learned counsel for the
petitioner was unavailable due to a bereavement in the family. In
view of the aforesaid circumstances, learned counsel submits that
PW-6 may be permitted to be cross-examined through video
conferencing, so as to avoid further inconvenience to the elderly
witness and ensure that the proceedings are not unnecessarily
delayed.
3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner/applicant, as well as the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondent, this Court is of the view that it is not
TEST. CAS. 105/2014 Page 2 of 10


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:27.10.2026
18:54:48

disputed that PW-6, Smt. Krishna Sen, is a crucial witness in the
present case and is about 71 years of age. Undisputedly, she resides
in Uttarakhand and is stated to be suffering from age-related health
issues, and owing to her age and medical condition, has been advised
rest by her doctor and is unable to undertake further physical travel to
Delhi for the purpose of her cross-examination. The learned counsel
for the respondent has also not disputed that she is suffering from age
related health issues.

4. This Court further notes that PW-6 had already travelled to
Delhi on three occasions for the purpose of her cross-examination,
namely, on 05.11.2024, 10.02.2025 and 24.07.2025. However, her
cross-examination could not be undertaken on any of these dates. As
submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, on 05.11.2024, an
adjournment had been sought on behalf of the respondent on account
of illness; on 10.02.2025, the Court was on leave; and on 24.07.2025,
learned counsel for the petitioner was unavailable due to a
bereavement in the family. Thus, despite PW-6 having travelled to
Delhi on three separate occasions, her cross-examination remained
incomplete for reasons which, as stated, had arisen on the respective
dates.
5. In the considered opinion of this Court, the aforesaid
circumstances call for a pragmatic approach, since requiring her to
undertake further physical journeys from Uttarakhand to Delhi,
despite her age and the health-related difficulties stated to be faced by
her, would cause her avoidable hardship. At the same time, the cross-
TEST. CAS. 105/2014 Page 3 of 10


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:27.10.2026
18:54:48

examination of a witness constitutes an important facet of a fair
adjudicatory process, and the respondent‟s right to test the testimony
of PW-6 must remain fully protected. The question, therefore, is
whether the mode of recording her cross-examination can be suitably
adapted to the circumstances without compromising the fairness or
effectiveness of the proceedings.
6. In this regard, this Court considers it appropriate to refer to the
High Court of Delhi Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2021
[hereafter „ 2021 Rules ‟]. The 2021 Rules specifically contemplate
the examination of a person through video conferencing where
physical attendance is rendered difficult by sickness or physical
infirmity, or where securing the person‟s presence would entail undue
delay or expense. Rule 8.15 of the 2021 Rules is relevant, which
reads as under:
“ 8.15 Where a Required Person is not capable of reaching the
Court Point or the Remote Point due to sickness or physical
infirmity, or presence of the required person cannot be secured
without undue delay or expense, the Court may authorize the
conduct of video conferencing from the place at which such
person is located. In such circumstances, the Court may direct
the use of portable video conferencing systems. Authority in
this behalf may be given to the concerned Coordinator and/or
any person deemed fit by the Court. ”

7. The aforesaid Rule confers discretion upon the Court to
authorize video conferencing from the place where the person
concerned is located in circumstances involving sickness, physical
infirmity, or undue delay or expense in securing that person's
presence. The circumstances stated in the present application fall
TEST. CAS. 105/2014 Page 4 of 10


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:27.10.2026
18:54:48

within the ambit of the considerations expressly contemplated by the
Rule. The age of PW-6, her stated health condition, her residence in
Uttarakhand and the repeated journeys already undertaken by her for
the purpose of cross-examination are all relevant considerations while
exercising the discretion conferred upon this Court.
8. It is also pertinent to note that Rule 8.12 of the 2021 Rules
provides as follows:
“8.12 The Court may also impose such other conditions as are
necessary for a given set of facts for effective recording of the
examination (especially to ensure compliance with Rule
5.6.4).”

9. This Court notes that the aforesaid Rule enables the Court to
prescribe appropriate safeguards to ensure that examination through
video conferencing is conducted effectively and in a manner
consistent with the requirements of a fair judicial proceeding.
10. This Court is also conscious of the fact that the 2021 Rules
have subsequently been repealed by the Electronic Evidence and
Video Conferencing Rules, 2025 [hereafter „ 2025 Rules ‟]. In this
regard, Rule 27(2)(a) of the 2025 Rules contains a saving provision
in respect of actions and proceedings commenced before the said
Rules came into force. Accordingly, to the extent applicable to the
present proceedings, the relevant provisions of the 2021 Rules would
continue to govern the matter.
11. In any event, even under the 2025 Rules, the position remains
the same. Rule 13(8) of the said Rules expressly empowers the Court
TEST. CAS. 105/2014 Page 5 of 10


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:27.10.2026
18:54:48

to authorize video conferencing from the place where a person is
located if such person is unable to reach the Court Point or the
designated place due to sickness or physical infirmity, or if securing
the person's presence would entail undue delay or expense. The said
provision reads as under:
“13. Examination of persons and witnesses through video
conferencing and other modes of audio-visual electronic
communication
x x x
(8) Where a required person is not capable of reaching the
Court Point or the designed place due to sickness or physical
infirmity, or whose presence cannot be secured without undue
delay or expense, the Court may authorize conduct of video
conferencing from the place at which such person is located. In
such circumstances the court may direct the use of portable
video conferencing systems and ensure presence as it may
deem fit.”

12. Further, Rule 13(9) of the 2025 Rules provides that the Court
may decline to examine a witness through video conferencing where,
for reasons to be recorded in writing, it forms the opinion that the
witness‟ evidence cannot be effectively recorded through such
means. The said rule, therefore, requires the Court to consider
whether the proposed mode of examination would permit the
evidence to be recorded effectively. In the present case, no such
impediment has been brought to the notice of this Court. On the
contrary, the circumstances placed before this Court indicate that the
proposed arrangement would facilitate the completion of the cross-
examination, while appropriate safeguards can be imposed to
preserve the fairness and effectiveness of the proceedings.
TEST. CAS. 105/2014 Page 6 of 10


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:27.10.2026
18:54:48

13. Thus, whether the matter is considered with reference to the
2021 Rules, as preserved by the saving clause, or under Rule 13(8),
read with Rule 13(9), of the 2025 Rules, this Court finds that the
request for examination of PW-6 through video conferencing is
legally permissible, in view of the reasons recorded hereinabove.
Such a course would accommodate the physical limitations stated to
be faced by an elderly witness, avoid further inconvenience arising
from travel, and facilitate the completion of the evidence without
unnecessary delay. At the same time, appropriate safeguards can be
imposed to ensure that the respondent is afforded a full and effective
opportunity to cross-examine the witness and that the proceedings
remain fair and reliable.
14. Accordingly, the present application is allowed, subject to the
following conditions:
i. The cross-examination of PW-6, Smt. Krishna Sen,
through video conferencing shall be conducted on a date and at
a time to be fixed by the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial), in
consultation with the parties and the concerned authorities
facilitating the video-conferencing arrangements.
ii. The cross-examination shall, in the first instance, be
conducted from a designated video-conferencing facility at a
location in Uttarakhand convenient to PW-6. In the event that
her age-related health conditions render travel to such facility
difficult, the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial) may consider
TEST. CAS. 105/2014 Page 7 of 10


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:27.10.2026
18:54:48

permitting the recording of her cross-examination from her
residence, subject to the applicable Rules and appropriate
safeguards.
iii. The identity of PW-6 shall be duly verified before the
commencement of her cross-examination. She shall also
confirm that she is appearing voluntarily and that she is in a
position to depose and answer questions without any person
prompting or influencing her.
iv. The video-conferencing facility shall be tested in
advance to ensure that the audio and video transmission is clear
and uninterrupted and that the proceedings can be conducted
effectively.
v. No person other than PW-6 and such person as may be
strictly necessary for facilitating the proceedings shall remain
present at the Remote Point during the cross-examination. The
presence of any such person shall be disclosed to the Court
before the proceedings commence.
vi. Any document sought to be put to PW-6 during cross-
examination shall be shown to her in accordance with the
applicable Rules and in such manner as may be directed by the
learned Joint Registrar (Judicial), ensuring that the parties have
a fair opportunity to refer to and examine the relevant
documents.
vii. The deposition recorded through video conferencing
TEST. CAS. 105/2014 Page 8 of 10


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:27.10.2026
18:54:48

shall be read over or explained to PW-6, as required under the
applicable Rules, and authenticated in the manner prescribed
therein.
viii. The petitioner shall coordinate with the concerned
authorities and take all necessary steps in advance to ensure
that the video-conferencing arrangements are duly made and
that PW-6 is informed of the date, time and place of
examination.
ix. The expenses, if any, incurred for facilitating the video-
conferencing arrangements at the Remote Point shall initially
be borne by the petitioner, subject to any further orders that
may be passed by the Court.
x. Both parties shall extend full cooperation to ensure that
the cross-examination is completed on the date fixed. Any
technical difficulty or interruption shall be brought to the
immediate notice of the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial), who
shall pass appropriate directions to facilitate the continuation of
the proceedings.
xi. No party or person present at either point shall make any
unauthorised audio or video recording of the proceedings or
disseminate any such recording.
15. The learned Joint Registrar (Judicial) shall take the necessary
steps to ensure that the cross-examination of PW-6 is conducted on
the date fixed, subject to the aforesaid conditions.
TEST. CAS. 105/2014 Page 9 of 10


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:27.10.2026
18:54:48

16. It is clarified that the permission granted by this Court is
confined to the mode of recording the cross-examination of PW-6
and shall not be construed as dispensing with any requirement of law
governing the recording of evidence. The respondent‟s right to
effectively cross-examine the witness shall remain unaffected.
17. The application, I.A. 5080/2026, stands disposed of in the
aforesaid terms.
18. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.


DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
OCTOBER 27, 2026/zp
T.S.

TEST. CAS. 105/2014 Page 10 of 10


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:27.10.2026
18:54:48