38.6c New Delhi, India, Monday, January 12, 2026
Top Stories Supreme Court
Political NEWS Legislative Corner Celebstreet International Videos
Subscribe Contact Us
close
Judiciary

Record Audio/Video Of Witness Statements: Madras HC [Read Order]

By LawStreet News Network      02 December, 2019 06:12 PM      0 Comments
Record Audio/Video Of Witness Statements: Madras HC [Read Order]

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on November 29, 2019, in the case of Satheesh Kumar & Ors. v. Inspector of Police directed that investigating officers should take advantage of the technology available to the present day mankind, and start recording witness statements especially in cases of grave and heinous crimes, i.e., punishment for which is 10 years or more. 

A Division Bench of Justice S. Vaidyanathan and Justice N. Anand Venkatesh was hearing appeals filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for offences committed under Sections 449 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The court issued certain guidelines for the recording of evidence and asked the prosecution to file a status report in the matter within three months and come up with a plan of action to implement these guidelines. The bench ruled that Section 161 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 already provides a mechanism for the audio and video recording of evidence.

With regard to this section, the court held that, It does not require a direction from this Court to implement this and the police department by itself should have started this process long back. This provision is available in the Code for the last ten years and it remains to be a dead letter without being implemented.

Though not mandatory, these guidelines are important because in many cases involving heinous crimes against women and children the witnesses turn hostile and the accused despite being guilty end up being acquitted for lack of evidence. 

The bench took note of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Doongar Singh & Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan and held that, In view of the above Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is now mandatory for the prosecution to examine the eyewitnesses as early as possible and their statements must be recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., and it should also be recorded by audio-video electronic means. This judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is now the law of the land and it should be implemented in its letter and spirit.

Apprehensions by the prosecution regarding the audio-video recording of the witness statements such as tampering or leaking of recordings on social media were brushed aside by the court.

[Read Order]



Share this article:

User Avatar
About:


Leave a feedback about this
TRENDING NEWS


TOP STORIES

wrong-bail-orders-alone-without-evidence-of-corruption-cannot-justify-removal-of-judicial-officer-sc
Trending Judiciary
Wrong Bail Orders Alone, Without Evidence of Corruption, Cannot Justify Removal of Judicial Officer: SC [Read Judgment]

Supreme Court rules that wrong bail orders alone cannot justify removal of a judicial officer without proof of corruption, misconduct, or extraneous considerations.

06 January, 2026 07:43 PM
divorced-muslim-woman-can-seek-maintenance-under-crpc-even-after-receiving-amount-under-muslim-women-protection-act-kerala-hc
Trending Judiciary
Divorced Muslim Woman Can Seek Maintenance Under CrPC Even After Receiving Amount Under Muslim Women Protection Act: Kerala HC [Read Order]

Kerala High Court holds that a divorced Muslim woman can claim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC even after receiving amounts under the 1986 Act.

06 January, 2026 08:19 PM
delhi-hc-full-bench-settles-bsf-seniority-dispute-rule-of-continuous-regular-appointment-prevails
Trending Judiciary
Delhi HC Full Bench Settles BSF Seniority Dispute; Rule of ‘Continuous Regular Appointment’ Prevails [Read Judgment]

Delhi High Court Full Bench rules BSF seniority is based on date of continuous regular appointment, rejecting claims for antedated seniority due to delayed joining.

06 January, 2026 08:45 PM
borrowers-cannot-invoke-writ-jurisdiction-to-compel-banks-to-extend-one-time-settlement-benefits-kerala-hc
Trending Judiciary
Borrowers Cannot Invoke Writ Jurisdiction to Compel Banks to Extend One-Time Settlement Benefits: Kerala HC [Read Judgment]

Kerala High Court holds borrowers cannot invoke writ jurisdiction to compel banks to grant One-Time Settlement benefits, as OTS is not a legal right.

07 January, 2026 09:22 PM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email