As per case facts, the complainant's wife, suffering from terminal cancer, was advised against surgery by a US-based doctor. However, the Respondent surgeon recommended and oversaw a surgery performed by ... another doctor, which allegedly led to severe complications and negligence. A criminal case was filed, and the prosecution sought to examine the US doctor via video conferencing, as he was unwilling to travel to India. The trial court allowed this, but the High Court reversed the decision, interpreting Section 273 of the Criminal Procedure Code as mandating physical presence. The State and the complainant then appealed to the Supreme Court.The question arose whether, in a criminal trial, evidence can be recorded through video conferencing.Finally, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, ruling that evidence can indeed be recorded via video conferencing in criminal trials. The Court clarified that the term "presence" in Section 273 Cr.P.C. does not necessarily mean physical presence but can be constructive, where the accused and their pleader can see, hear, and interact with the witness. This interpretation aligns with advancements in technology and the principle of updating statutory construction for ongoing laws. The Court emphasized that video conferencing, especially when conducted under commission with proper safeguards and supervision, fully meets the requirements of a fair trial, including effective cross-examination, and ensures no prejudice to the accused, even if the witness is located outside India.