Kerala High Court allows accused living abroad to answer trial court's questions remotely

The Kerala High Court recently granted relief to a man employed abroad, who expressed difficulties in coming to India for the purpose of answering a Kollam sub-court's questions in an excise case trial pending against him [Rameshan v State of Kerala]..The trial court had earlier granted him an exemption from personally appearing before it during earlier stages of the trial. However, it refused to extend such an exemption when it came to seeking his response to questions under Section 351 (power of the court to examine the accused, to enable him to personally explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him) of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). Aggrieved, the accused man moved a plea before the High Court to allow his lawyer to answer such questions on his behalf. On October 22, Justice CS Dias ruled that the accused can respond to the trial court's questions either through a written statement or via electronic video/ videoconferencing. .Justice Dias referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Basavaraj R Patil & Ors v State of Karnataka to reiterate that, in special situations, the accused in criminal trials can be permitted to send their responses through written statements that are properly authenticated.Further, the judge also pointed out that Section 351 (5) of the BNSS also permits such a method for answering queries posed under the said provision. Section 351 (5) provides that trial courts may permit the filing of written statements by the accused.Moreover, the High Court noted that there are robust video-conferencing facilities now in place to allow the accused to respond to the trial court's queries through virtual means. The Court observed that the COVID-19 pandemic had accelerated such adoption of technology in judicial proceedings, resulting in hybrid and virtual hearings.Recognising this shift, the Electronic Video Linkage Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021 and the Electronic Filing Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021 were also introduced to allow the examination of accused persons, framing of charges, and filing of documents through video conferencing and electronic means.The Court noted that these Rules, together with Section 351 BNSS, represented a progressive integration of technology in criminal proceedings to ensure access to justice.The High Court concluded that the accused can answer the trial court's queries either by sending his answers in an authenticated written statement or through videoconferencing. "I don't find any legal impediment in permitting the petitioner to answer the questions under Section 351 BNSS either by adopting the procedure laid down in Section 351 (5) BNSS and Basavaraj R Patil's case or by getting his answers recorded via the electronic video linkage under the Linkage Rules and getting the statement signed as per the procedure under Rule 8 (16) of the Rules. It would be up to the petitioner to choose the method," the Court said. .The petitioner (accused) was directed to file a memo before the trial court within two weeks, indicating whether he preferred to answer the questions in writing or via videoconferencing..The petitioner was represented by advocates KV Anil Kumar, Radhika S Anil, and Nijaz Jaleel.Senior Public Prosecutor CS Hrithwik appeared for the State..[Read Order]