A:
State Of Maharashtra V. Praful B. Desai
B:
Paramjit Kaur V. State Of Punjab
C:
Pappu Yadav V. State Of Bihar
D:
Bhachan Singh V. State Of Punjab
Explanation
The correct option is A: State of Maharashtra v. Praful B. Desai.
In this case, the Supreme Court of India held that evidence can be recorded through video-conferencing in criminal trials under certain circumstances. The case involved a challenge to the admissibility of evidence that had been recorded through video-conferencing in a criminal trial in Maharashtra.
The court held that video-conferencing could be used to record evidence if the witness is unable to physically appear in court due to reasons such as health issues, old age, or distance. The court also laid down certain guidelines to ensure that the process is fair and transparent, such as ensuring that the witness is properly identified and sworn in, and that both the prosecution and defense have the opportunity to cross-examine the witness.
This ruling has since been cited in various other cases, and has helped to facilitate the use of technology in the Indian legal system, particularly in situations where physical presence in court may be difficult or impossible.
