ABOUT THE AUTHOR
This Article is written by JINU S KRISHNAN, BA.LLB, LL.M. He is an editor at LJRFVOICE.COM and an active member of LJRF Trivandrum Chapter.
PLEA BARGAINING IN THE INDIAN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
Our Constitution’s Preamble provides “Justice – social, economic, and political to all its citizens.”While these are laudable aspects of Justice administration, “delay” in case disposition is a blemish on them. The backlog of cases in the courts and the inevitable delay in dispensing Justice has shaken public faith and confidence in the legal system to such an extent that it has affected public trust and confidence in the legal system. The essence of Criminal Justice is a speedy trial, and any delay represents a denial of Justice. Different techniques and tools have been utilised in various legal systems to reduce the burden of trials and to ensure that matters are resolved as quickly as possible. Plea bargaining is the process whereby a person accused of a criminal offence negotiates with the prosecution for a lesser penalty than the law imposes, by pleading guilty to a less serious offence. It was widespread in the United States during 1970’s, since it has spread all over the world[1], and it has been proven to be a successful way to avoid lengthy and complicated trials. As a result, conviction rates are extremely high in such regions. Pre-trial negotiations between the accused and the prosecutor are the main focus. It may entail negotiating the charge or the sentence’s length.
DEFINITION AND CONCEPT OF PLEA BARGAINING
Pleading guilty rather than going to trial minimizes the uncertainty of a trial’s outcome; the defendant cannot foresee what will happen in a case before a judge or a jury of 12 people. Plea agreements are also seen as allowing the accused to make choices. According to the state, the fundamental advantage of plea-bargaining is that it saves time and money. Almost everyone agrees that the system would implode if every case filed went to trial; there simply isn’t enough money to try every case. It is a negotiated agreement between the prosecution and the defence whereby the defendant pleads guilty to a lesser offence or to one of multiple charges in exchange for some concession by the prosecution, usually a more lenient sentence or a dismissal of the negotiated charges[2]
Plea Bargaining In India Before The 2005 Amendment
Prior to the amendments that eventually allowed for plea bargaining in India, the Supreme Court appeared to be unanimous in its belief that plea bargaining is an unacceptable procedure that should not be recognised in our legal system. This was shown in various judgments when the Indian Supreme Court plainly ruled in the same direction. The case of Madanlal Ram Chandra Daga[3] was one of the first to address this issue, with the Supreme Court ruling that the High Court erred in permitting a transaction of justice in which the complainant got money from the offender, and this was cited as a basis for leniency in sentencing. The court stated that while the court may show mercy to the accused if the facts of the case warrants so, but the court should never be a party to such a transaction rather than try and punish the accused for his own crime.
The Supreme Court of India maintained the same approach in the case of Murlidhar Meghraj Loya[4], where the court stated that plea bargaining benefits everyone except the society that is the victim of the crime. In the Ganeshmal Jashraj[5] and Thippaswamy[6] cases, the Supreme Court followed these verdict trends. In the latter case, Bhagwati J. ruled that encouraging a prisoner to plead guilty with promises of leniency was not only illegal in India, but also violated Article 21 of the Constitution, and remanded the matter to the trial court. The Supreme Court stated in the Kachhia Patel case[7] that plea bargaining is “unconstitutional, unlawful, and will tend to enhance corruption, collusion, and pollute the pure fount of justice; In one of the more recent cases[8], the court reiterated that plea bargaining was against Indian public policy and that the only scope for negotiated settlements in the Indian criminal justice system was covered by Section 360 of the CrPC, which allows for the compounding of certain offences with or without the court’s permission.
Plea Bargaining In India Following The 2005 Amendment
The Supreme Court’s hostile stance towards plea bargaining was shattered by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2005, which formally introduced the concept of plea bargaining in India by inserting Sections 265-A to 265-L into the Code of Criminal Procedure, effectively creating a separate chapter, Chapter XXI-A, titled Plea Bargaining. The chapter lays out the technique for plea bargaining in India, and it’s clear evidence of the country’s evolving Criminal Justice System.
The notion was originally made in the 142nd Law Commission Report, which noted that the United States’ practise of plea bargaining was in no way contrary to our Constitution’s values of justice and fairness. The study also highlighted plea bargaining’s enormous effectiveness in making the judicial system more efficient and shortening the time it takes to resolve cases. Due to the ongoing delays in India’s criminal justice system and the failure of various changes aimed at streamlining the Indian system, the same observations were made in the 154th and 177th Law Commission Reports. Plea Bargaining became legal in India after the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act of 2005, which followed the recommendations of the Law Commission of India. This shift in the legal system is shown by the recent case State of Gujarat v. Natwar Harchanji Thakor[9], in which a division bench of the Gujarat High Court stated, “We are inclined to say here that the law should be stable but not at a standstill.”
Plea Bargaining Procedure
The method for Plea Bargaining is outlined in Sections 265-A to 265-L of the newly introduced Chapter XXI-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, titled Plea Bargaining.
Section 265-A; Plea Bargaining is possible to the accused who is charged with any crime other than those punished by death, imprisonment for life, or a sentence of more than seven years in jail. The ability to inform the Central Government is granted under Section 265A (2) of the Code. The Central Government published Notification No. SO1042 (II) dated 11-7/2006, outlining the offences that have an impact on the country’s socioeconomic situation. Section 265-B envisages an application for Plea Bargaining to be filed by the accused, which shall contain a brief description of the case relating to which the application is filed, including the offences to which the case relates, and shall be accompanied by an affidavit sworn by the accused stating that he has voluntarily preferred the application, the Plea Bargain, the nature and extent of the punishment provided under the law for the offence, and the Plea Bar. Following that, the court will send notice to the Public Prosecutor, the case’s Investigating Officer, the Victim, and the accused, setting a date for Plea Negotiating. When the parties attend, the court will conduct an in-camera examination of the accused without the presence of the other parties in the case, in order to ensure that the accused has willingly submitted the application.
Section 265-C lays forth the steps that the court must take in order to reach a mutually acceptable resolution. In a case brought on the basis of a police report, the court must provide notice to the Public Prosecutor, the case’s Investigating Officer, the Victim, and the accused to attend a meeting to work out a suitable resolution to the case. In a complaint matter, the court must give notice to both the accused and the victim of the case. Section 265-D deals with the court’s drafting of a report on the attainment or failure of a mutually agreeable resolution. If an acceptable resolution of the matter is reached in a meeting under section 265-C, the court shall write a report of such disposition, which must be signed by the Presiding Office of the courts and all other individuals who had attended the meeting. If no such resolution has been reached, the Court shall record such observation and continue in accordance with the provisions of this Code from the point at which the application under Sub-Section (1) of Section 265-B was filed.
When an acceptable resolution of the issue has been worked out, Section 265-E outlines the method to be followed in disposing of the case. The Court must hear the parties on the quantum of the punishment or the accuser’s entitlement to release on probation for good conduct or for admonition after the proceedings under S. 265 D are completed by preparing a report signed by the Presiding Officer of the Court and parities in the meeting. The court has the option of either releasing the accused on probation of good conduct under S. 360 of the Code, the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, or any other applicable legal rules, or punishing the accused by passing sentence. According to Section 265-G, no appeal shall be taken against such a ruling, while Section 265-H deals with the court’s authority in Plea Bargaining. For the purposes of carrying out its responsibilities under Chapter XXIA, a Court shall have all of the powers conferred on it by the Criminal Procedure Code in relation to the trial of offences and other matters relevant to the disposition of a case in such a Court. Section 265-I states that Section 428 applies to sentences imposed as a result of Plea Bargaining. Section 265-J discusses the provisions of the chapter that take effect notwithstanding anything in the Code to the contrary, and nothing in the Code to the contrary shall be considered to include the meaning of any provision of chapter XXI-A.
According to Section 265-K, “the statements or facts supplied by the accused in an application for Plea Bargaining shall not be used for any other purpose than that specified in the chapter.” In the event of any juvenile or child as described in Section 2(k) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, Section 265-L makes the chapter inapplicable.
It is essential to follow the aforementioned method outlined in Chapter XXI-A in order to get a legitimate Plea Bargaining disposition. Even though “Plea Bargaining” is available after the said amendment, the chapter contemplates a mutually satisfactory disposition of the case in cases where the offence is not punishable by death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment for a term exceeding seven years, and this cannot be done without including the Victim in the process. In the matter of Sh. Charan Singh v. M.C.D.[10], the Hon’ble High Court found that the petitioner could not be disqualified for a conviction because he had been released on probation. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court has cited the case of Trikha Ram v. V. K. Seth and Anr[11], in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court declared that Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 might be extended to the Offender’s service.
The Advantages of Plea Bargaining
There are several advantages to this method over the traditional trial system. As previously stated[12], the scheme is only usable in restricted circumstances and not in all types of Criminal proceedings. One of the new system’s advantages is that it assists the court in managing its workload, resulting in a reduction in case backlog; another is that it relieves the Magistrate of the burden of preparing a lengthy judgment[13]. Second, this technique benefits Public Prosecutors by freeing them from the task of questioning vulnerable and frail witnesses such as youngsters and household women[14]. Third, there is a higher possibility that the guilty plea will be accepted by the court; the court will be less likely to reject the plea due to minor difficulties, which is considerably more advantageous for the accused. Fourth, it is a factor in the offender’s reform by admitting responsibility for their conduct and willingly presenting themselves to the law rather than going through an expensive and time-consuming trial[15]. Plea bargaining is not intended to reward repeating offenders or established criminals; rather, it is intended to aid newcomers. The accused must have a willing motivation to plead guilty; if the purpose is not willing, the plea is likely to be dismissed from the start. In general, one might argue that the method is legitimate since it strikes a proper balance between the ideals of Justice and of Law.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, Plea Bargaining is unquestionably a contentious subject. Few individuals have embraced it, while others have turned their backs on it. Plea bargaining does help to expedite case resolution, but it does it in an unlawful manner. But it’s possible that we won’t have an option but to use this method. The Criminal Courts are already overburdened and cannot afford to hear each and every case. Finally, this shift is neither good nor evil in and of itself. Rather, the question is whether, given a variety of options for decreasing the massive backlog of cases in Indian courts, including Plea Bargaining, would allow choices to be made in a way that successfully promotes the Criminal Justice System’s core aims.
REFERENCES
[2] Bryan Garner, Black’s Law Dictionary (8th edn, Thomson & West 2004) 1190
[3] 1968 AIR 1267, 1968 SCR (3) 34
[4] 1976 AIR 1929, 1977 SCR (1) 1
[5] 1980 AIR 264, 1980 SCR (1)1114
[6] AIR 1983 SC 747, (1983) 1 SCC 194
[7] 1980 CriLJ 553
[8] Kasambhai vs State of Gujarat (1980 AIR 854)
[9] 2005 CriLJ 2957; 1 GLR 709
[10](Writ Petition (Civil) No. 18725/2005) decided on 05/10/2006
[11]1987 [Supp] SCC 39
[13]That “plea bargaining” may be applicable only in limited cases; it does not apply to cases where the offence committed is a socio-economic offence or where the offence is committed against a woman or a child below the age of 14 years. Simply speaking, it is applicable in respect of those offences for which punishment is up to a period of seven years.
[12]Singla, J.R.Plea Bargaining-A Speedy Justice for Under-trials’ See access on September 10, 2011.
[14]Ibid.
[15]Ibid.
