The following case law will throw some light on the subject.
In State of Maharashtra v. Dr Praful B. Desai (2003) the Supreme Court held, as to the question whether recording of evidence by video conferencing is permissible:
“Video conferencing has nothing to do with virtual realty. Advance in science and technology have now, so to say, shrunk the world. They now enable to see and here events, taking place for away, as they are actually taking place. Video conferencing is advancement in science in technology which permits one to see here and talk with someone far away with the same facility and ease as if he is present before you i.e. in your presence. In fact he/she is present before you on a screen. Except for touching one can see, here and observe as if the party is in the same room. In video conferencing both parties are in presence of each other. Recording of evidence by Video conferencing also satisfied the object of providing, in section 273, that evidence be recorded in the presence of the accused. The accused and his pleader can see the witness as clearly as if the witness was actually sitting before them. The advancement of science and technology is such that now it is possible to setup video conferencing equipment in the Court itself for recording the evidence through video conferencing.”