Very Important Points
1. Mere acceptance or admission of the guilt should not be a ground for reduction of sentence. Nor can the accused bargain with the Court that as he is pleading guilty sentence be reduced. Appeal must be decided on merit even if there be any concession on part of accused/counsel.
2. Neither the State nor the public prosecutor nor even the Judge can bargain that evidence would not be led or appreciated in consideration of getting flee bite sentence by pleading guilty.

Headnote:Criminal Appeal-Plea bargaining-Reduction of sentence on basis of-Legality-Mere acceptance or admission of guilt should not be ground for reduction of sentence-Accused cannot bargain with Court that he is pleading guilty and sentence be reduced-Appeal must be decided on merit even if there be concession on part of appellant or his counsel.
       Concept of ‘plea bargaining’ is not recognized and is against public policy under our criminal justice system. Section 320 Cr.P.C. provides for compounding of certain offences with the permission of the Court and certain others even without permission of the Court. Except the above, the concept of negotiated settlement in criminal cases is not permissible. This method of short circuiting the hearing and deciding the criminal appeals or cases involving serious offences requires no encouragement. Neither the State nor the public prosecutor nor even the Judge can bargain that evidence would not be led or appreciated in consideration of getting flee bite sentence by pleading guilty. (Para 3)
       It is settled law that on the basis of plea bargaining Court cannot dispose of the criminal cases. The Court has to decide it on merits. If accused confesses his guilt, appropriate sentence is required to be imposed. Further, the approach of the Court in appeal or revisions should be to find out whether the accused is guilty or not on the basis of evidence on record. If he is guilty, appropriate sentence is required to be imposed or maintained. If the appellant or his counsel submits that he is not challenging the order of conviction, as there is sufficient evidence to connect the accused with the crime, then also the Court’s conscious must be satisfied before passing final order that the said concession is based on the evidence on record. In such cases, sentence commensurating with the crime committed by the accused is required to be imposed. Mere acceptance or admission of the guilt should not be a ground for reduction of sentence. Nor can the accused bargain with the Court that as he is pleading guilty sentence be reduced. (Para 8)
       In the instant case, in an appeal against sentence of 8 years of R.I. under Section 302 read with Section 307 of IPC at the time of hearing the appellant opted not to challenge the findings of conviction recorded by the trial Court with a view to bargain on the question of sentence. The High Court accepted the bargain and allowed the appeal by observing inter alia that as the incident had taken place long back and since the appellant had been in jail for sometime, both as undertrial prisoner and as a convict, it was desirable to substitute his remaining period of jail sentence as awarded by the trial Court and altered the sentence as stated above.
       Held, that the order passed by the High Court is, on the face of it, illegal and erroneous. It appears that the learned Judge has overlooked the settled law. The impugned order of the High Court was quashed and set aside and the High Court was directed to decide appeal on merits. (Paras 3 & 9)

Judgment

Shah, J.-Leave granted.

2. These appeals by special leave are filed by the State of U.P. against the judgment and order dated 28th November, 1997 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal Nos. 2747-48 of 1980 whereby the High Court accepted the plea bargain and maintained the conviction of the respondent under Section 304 part 1, IPC but altered the sentence of the period of imprisonment already undergone (without stating actual period of imprisonment undergone by the respondent) plus a fine of R. 5000/- in default of payment R. I., for six months. The respondent along with two others was charged under Section 302 read with Sections 307 and 34 I.P.C. for committing the murder of one Shyamadeo in Sessions Case No. 233 of 1980. The Sessions Judge, Ballia by his judgment and order dated 28.11.1980 convicted the respondent under Section 304 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo eight years R. I. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent preferred an appeal before the High Court and at the time of hearing opted not to challenge the findings of conviction recorded by the trial Court with a view to bargain on the question of sentence. Learned Single Judge, (Malaviya, J.) accepted the bargain and allowed the appeal by observing inter alia that as the incident had taken place long back and since the appellant had been in jail for sometime, both as undertrial prisoner and as a convict, it was desirable to substitute his remaining period of jail sentence as awarded by the trial Court and altered the sentence as stated above. The State has challenged the judgment and order by filing these appeals.

3. It is apparent that the order passed by the High Court is, on the face of it, illegal and erroneous. It appears that the learned Judge has overlooked the settled law or is unaware that concept of ‘plea bargaining’ is not recognized and is against public policy under our criminal justice system. Section 320 Cr.P.C. provides for compounding of certain offences with the permission of the Court and certain others even without permission of the Court. Except the above, the concept of negotiated settlement in criminal cases is not permissible. This method of short circuiting the hearing and deciding the criminal appeals or cases involving serious offences requires no encouragement. Neither the State nor the public prosecutor nor even the Judge can bargain that evidence would not be led or appreciated in consideration of getting flee bite sentence by pleading guilty.

4. For this purpose, we would first refer to the decision in Madanlal Ram Chandra Daga etc. v. State of Maharashtra1, wherein this Court held :

“In our opinion, it is very wrong for a court to enter into a bargain of this character. Offences should be tried and punished according to the guilt of the accused. If the Court thinks that leniency can be shown on the facts of the case it may impose a lighter sentence. But the court should never be a party to a bargain by which money is recovered for the complainant through their agency. We do not approve of the action adopted by the High Court...”

5. Again the question of plea bargain was considered by this Court in Murlidhar Meghraj Loya v. State of Maharashtra2, and disapproved by following succinct observation:-

“To begin with, we are free to confess to a hunch that the appellants had hastened with their pleas of guilty hopefully, induced by an informal, tripartite understanding of light sentence in lieu of nolo contendere stance. Many economic offenders resort to practices the Americans call `plea bargaining’, `plea negotiation’, `trading out’ and `compromise in criminal cases’ and the trial magistrate drowned by a docket burden nods assent to the sub rosa ante-room settlement. The businessman culprit, confronted by a sure prospect of the agony and ignominy of tenancy of a prison cell, `trades out’ of the situation, the bargain being a plea of guilt, coupled with a promise of `no jail’. These advance arrangem

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1999 Supreme(SC) 1282

Cases Referred (5)