The Karnataka High Court, on Thursday, September 10 suggested alternatives to the regular physical production of Kannada actor Darshan Thoogudeepa before the trial court in the Renukaswamy murder case, noting that producing him in court on every date could pose security and traffic concerns.
Justice V Srishananda was hearing a petition filed by Darshan’s wife, Vijayalakshmi, seeking permission for the actor, who is the second accused in the case, to be physically produced before the trial court for the duration of the trial instead of appearing through video conference from Bengaluru Central Prison. She had appealed the high court after a trial court rejected her petition stating that recurring technical and connectivity problems during video-conferencing proceedings prevented Darshan from effectively following the trial.
The court observed that Darshan could instead be physically produced when key witnesses are examined and cross-examined. It also suggested that the trial could potentially be shifted to the special court at Parappana Agrahara, where an exclusive facility is available for conducting proceedings involving prisoners.
The court asked Special Public Prosecutor P Prasanna Kumar and senior advocate Hashmath Pasha, who represents Darshan, to submit the modalities for examining and cross-examining the important witnesses.
The High Court also suggested that the examination of material witnesses could be completed within a few days. Darshan could be physically produced before the trial court for three or four days to facilitate the examination and cross-examination of these witnesses, the court said.
Another option suggested by the court was to allow Darshan’s lawyers to have a private and confidential conversation with him before each hearing. Justice Srishananda said the trial court’s official video-conferencing infrastructure, including a mobile phone with video-calling and headphone facilities, could be used to facilitate such consultations.
SPP Prasanna Kumar told the court that he had already suggested before the trial court that Darshan could be physically produced for a few days during the examination and cross-examination of important witnesses.
The petition challenges an August 17 order of the trial court, which rejected a request by Darshan and three other accused to be physically produced during the trial. The accused had argued that they were not getting sufficient opportunity to consult their lawyers and give them instructions while appearing through video conference from prison.
Vijayalakshmi, through the petition, also contended that recurring technical and connectivity problems during video-conferencing proceedings prevented Darshan from effectively following the trial.
The trial court, however, had held that the accused’s production through video conference had not affected their substantive or procedural rights. It had directed the prison authorities to provide the accused with complete and unrestricted opportunities to consult and communicate confidentially with their advocates, without unreasonable restrictions on the duration or number of consultations.
The trial court had also directed the City Civil Court registry to ensure that the video-conferencing facility remained functional throughout the proceedings. Technical personnel were to be deputed to address any issues, while arrangements were also to be made to facilitate consultations between the accused and their lawyers before, during and after the recording of evidence.
The High Court has adjourned further hearing of the petition to September 16.