The Supreme Court on 14.08.2018, in its judgement in the two cases named Imtiyaz Ramzan Khan v State of Maharashtra with Ramhit Patel v State of Chhattisgarh issued directions to the State Legal Committees/ Authorities to afford the facilities of video conferences between the accused and the advocate to promote justice and prevent miscarriage of justice to any person with regard to criminal cases.
Despite both the special leave petitions being independent of each other had witnessed a common judgement by the virtue of having a very distinct feature being commonly relevant in both the cases.
The first case of Imtiyaz Ramzan Khan v State of Maharashtra, had challenged the Bombay High Court for the dismissal of the petitioner’s criminal appeal which confirmed the conviction followed by life imprisonment sentence as the accused was being held guilty for murder. The prosecution had profoundly relied upon the testimony of the eye witnesses and the Bombay High Court found the evidence was of enough worth to establish the guilt of the accused. The Apex Court too, did not feel the need to interfere with such decision of the High Court as a result of which the special leave petition was called for dismissal.
The second case of Ramhit Patel v State of Chhattisgarh wheeled around a judgment of the High Court of Chhattisgarh which was challenged by the petitioner when the High Court had rejected the criminal appeal and confirmed the conviction of the accused for murdering and followed by  life imprisonment sentence.
The defense of a sudden fight was contended from the petitioner’s side. After a thorough analysis of the facts and circumstances, the court blatantly rejected such theory conceived by the defense while holding the accused guilty of murder. Similarly, after going through the entire matter, the Supreme Court held a similar view and dismissed the special leave petition.
The Advocate for the petitioner had submitted for the adjournment of the matters in order to facilitate the counsel for making necessary arrangements to conduct video conferencing with the accused while stating that such an exercise is compulsory according to the directions given by the Supreme Legal Service Committee.
 On the date of adjournment, the advocate concluded that he was able to get in touch with the sister of the accused in the absence of the accused pertaining to the first case while in the second case he was successful in conducting a video conference with the accused.
Thus, the Apex Court gave directions to all such Legal Service Authorities or Committees for every state for extending likewise facilities to every criminal case when such accused is set behind the bars. The court further directed for a setting up of video conferencing facility between the advocate and the accused or any such person familiar with the facts revolving around the case in order to promote and ensure justice and in turn making the concept of legal aid meaningful.
[embeddoc url=”https://www.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2018/20446/20446_2018_Judgement_14-Aug-2018.pdf” download=”all” text=”Download Judgment”]
The Supreme Court on 14.08.2018, in its judgement in the two cases named Imtiyaz Ramzan Khan v State of Maharashtra with Ramhit Patel v State of Chhattisgarh issued directions to the State Legal Committees/ Authorities to afford the facilities of video conferences between the accused and the advocate to promote justice and prevent miscarriage of justice to any person with regard to criminal cases.Despite both the special leave petitions being independent of each other had witnessed a common judgement by the virtue of having a very distinct feature being commonly relevant in both the cases.The first case of Imtiyaz Ramzan Khan v State of Maharashtra, had challenged the Bombay High Court for the dismissal of the petitioner’s criminal appeal which confirmed the conviction followed by life imprisonment sentence as the accused was being held guilty for murder. The prosecution had profoundly relied upon the testimony of the eye witnesses and the Bombay High Court found the evidence was of enough worth to establish the guilt of the accused. The Apex Court too, did not feel the need to interfere with such decision of the High Court as a result of which the special leave petition was called for dismissal.The second case of Ramhit Patel v State of Chhattisgarh wheeled around a judgment of the High Court of Chhattisgarh which was challenged by the petitioner when the High Court had rejected the criminal appeal and confirmed the conviction of the accused for murdering and followed by  life imprisonment sentence.The defense of a sudden fight was contended from the petitioner’s side. After a thorough analysis of the facts and circumstances, the court blatantly rejected such theory conceived by the defense while holding the accused guilty of murder. Similarly, after going through the entire matter, the Supreme Court held a similar view and dismissed the special leave petition.The Advocate for the petitioner had submitted for the adjournment of the matters in order to facilitate the counsel for making necessary arrangements to conduct video conferencing with the accused while stating that such an exercise is compulsory according to the directions given by the Supreme Legal Service Committee. On the date of adjournment, the advocate concluded that he was able to get in touch with the sister of the accused in the absence of the accused pertaining to the first case while in the second case he was successful in conducting a video conference with the accused.Thus, the Apex Court gave directions to all such Legal Service Authorities or Committees for every state for extending likewise facilities to every criminal case when such accused is set behind the bars. The court further directed for a setting up of video conferencing facility between the advocate and the accused or any such person familiar with the facts revolving around the case in order to promote and ensure justice and in turn making the concept of legal aid meaningful.
