Kerala HC Moots Modernization of Trial Courts; Allows Litigants To Seek Readable Copies Of Witness Depositions If Available

This discussion arose in the context of a man convicted of murder who sought legible copies of witness depositions from the Sessions Court.

A Bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas remarked on the necessity of modernizing trial courts, and said, “In this context, this Court is compelled to observe that with the advent of modern technology, including artificial intelligence, it is high time that the trial courts are equipped with sufficient infrastructure to take down the deposition of witnesses by resorting to the latest technology. Though writing depositions in own handwriting may enable the court in its analytical process, the benefits of using modern technology will far outweigh such limited advantages. The laborious and time-consuming process of Judges writing down witness depositions is indeed archaic and even stressful. The plight of the judicial officers indulging in writing down long depositions, cannot be ignored, especially when advanced technologies are available.”

The Court noted that the traditional method of judges manually writing down depositions is both stressful and outdated.

Advocate Ahalya Prakash K. V. appeared for the petitioner and Public Prosecutor Adv. C. N. Prabhakaran appeared for the Respondents.

The High Court noted that Rule 56A(2)(b) of the Criminal Rules of Practice allows for witness evidence to be recorded through dictation onto a mechanical or electronic device. Additionally, Section 311 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita permits recording evidence in open court via dictation. The Court referred to a 2017 circular that allowed all courts to utilize dictation for witness testimony.

The Court further stated that technological advancements now enable real-time speech-to-text transcription, which could significantly reduce delays in evidence recording. The Court added, “However, technology has advanced even further. From recording the evidence of witnesses through the dictation of the Presiding Officer, technology is now available to convert speech to text simultaneously as the evidence is being taken. If such modern technology is applied in courts, delays while recording the evidence can be avoided. The concept of digital recording and transcription of depositions, or the use of speech-to-text software or similar technologies are required to be implemented in the trial courts without further delay”

Recognizing that lengthy handwriting sessions often result in illegible texts, the Court pointed out, “Hence, it is time that Courts, especially the trial courts, update their resources to include advanced technologies. Appropriate training must also be provided to the Judicial Officers to enable them to use the advantages of technology.  The Registry of the High Court, must earnestly explore the possibility of equipping the trial courts in the State, with such advanced technologies to bring a change to the archaic practices. Appropriate training must also be provided through the Judicial Academy to promote the use of such modern technologies.”.

According to Rule 262 of the Kerala Criminal Rules of Practice, readable copies of depositions are prepared when trial court files are submitted to the High Court. In this case, such copies had already been created since the petitioner had previously challenged his conviction in the High Court, which had been dismissed. The petitioner intended to appeal to the Supreme Court and required these readable copies.

The High Court was informed that the trial court records had been returned, and the petitioner had applied to the Sessions Court for certified copies of the readable depositions. However, the Sessions Court rejected his application, citing rules against issuing readable copies.

The High Court ruled that once readable copies are prepared, they should be made available to the requesting parties, particularly if the original depositions are unreadable. The Court stated, "Non-decipherable depositions would not serve the cause of justice; on the contrary, illegible documents can cause prejudice to the accused." However, the Court clarified that parties cannot demand the preparation of readable copies unless such copies already exist.

In conclusion, the High Court directed the Sessions Court to provide certified copies of the readable depositions as requested, provided the originals are available in the case file.

Cause Title: Vaisakh v. State of Kerala & Ors., [2024:KER:69867]

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Ahalya Prakash K. V., K. K. Subitha, Meghana Manoj