Back
2023 Supreme(Gau) 1413
THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, MALASRI NANDI, JJ.
Sankar Pator, S/o. Sri Champak Pator – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Assam, Represented By Public Prosecutor And Anr. – Respondents
Crl. A.(J) No.115 Of 2023
Decided On : 11-12-2023
For the Petitioner: Mr. B. Haldar.
Proper procedure for recording a plea of guilty as required by law is essential for a valid conviction.
Headnote:
Pleading Guilty - Criminal Conspiracy - IPC 120(B)/307/511, Explosive Substance Act - Section 4
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under IPC 120(B)/307/511 and Explosive Substance Act based on his guilty plea. The trial court failed to follow the proper procedure for recording the plea of guilty, leading to the setting aside of the conviction and remittal for retrial.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court did not follow the procedure for recording the plea of guilty as required by law, leading to the setting aside of the conviction and remittal for retrial.
Issues: Failure to follow proper procedure for recording plea of guilty, violation of the appellant's rights, need for retrial.
Ratio Decidendi: The trial court's failure to follow the procedure for recording the plea of guilty as required by law led to the setting aside of the conviction and remittal for retrial.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the case was remitted back to the trial court for retrial from the stage of framing of charge. The appellant's plea for release on bail was also acknowledged, and the trial court was directed to consider the same.
JUDGMENT :
(Malasri Nandi, J.) :
Heard Mr. B. Haldar, learned counsel for the appellant and also Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.07.2017 and 18.07.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Morigaon in Sessions Case No. 39/2017, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 120(B)/307/511 IPC read with Section 4 of the Explosive Substance Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default to pay the same to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 year for the offence under Section 120(B) IPC. (A) He was also sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine for Rs.25,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 year for the offence under Section 307 IPC. (B) He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years for the offence under Section 4 of the Explosive Substance Act, on pleading his guilty.
3. The factual matrix leading to the case of the prosecution is that on 24.07.2015 the informant lodged an FIR before the Officer In-charge, Jagiroad PS stating inter alia that on 23.07.2015 at about 7.20 PM, while he and his employee were sitting in his shop at Jagiroad Dry Fish market, suddenly some unknown culprits threw some article in a plastic bag. On opening of the said plastic bag by his employee, he could see the same as a grenade like article and they accordingly informed the police.
4. On receipt of the FIR, a case was registered being Jagiroad PS Case No. 305/2015 under Section 120(B)/307/511 IPC read with Section 4 of Explosive Substance Act. During investigation, seven persons including the present appellant were apprehended and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against three of the accused persons, namely, the present appellant, Shankar Pator, Motiram Deuri and Jiten Pator under the aforesaid Sections of law. As the offence was triable by the Court of Session, the same was committed accordingly.
5. During hearing of charge, the appellant pleaded guilty before the trial court that he had committed the offence as per order sheet dated 19.06.2017, which is reproduced as below:
“19.06.2017:
The accused person namely, Sh. Sankar Pator has been produced from the custody. Other two accused persons namely, Sh. Jiten Pator and Sh. Motiram Deuri are present.
During hearing on charge, accused Sankar Pator has stated in the open court that he committed the alleged incident at the behest of his leader Bidyut Angsong. The accused Sankar Pator has also stated that the said Bidyut Angsong is the leader of Tiwa Liberation Army and he performed the alleged incident as per instruction of said Bidyut Angsong. Therefore, accused Sankar Pator has submitted that he was actually not involved into the alleged incident, rather, he was used to perform the alleged incident.
The other two accused persons have submitted before the Court that they are not at all involved into the alleged incident.
Learned PP during hearing on charge has submitted that charge sheet has been filed against the accused persons u/s 120B/307/511 IPC r/w Section 4 of the Explosive Substance Act. Learned PP has also prayed for another date for hearing on charge.
Therefore, another date is fixed for hearing on charge.
Accused Sankar Pator is remanded back to custody till next date. The other two accused persons are directed to appear before the Court on the next date for charge hearing.
Fixed 03.07.2017 for hearing on charge.”
6. Subsequently, on 17.07.2017 final order was passed convicting the appellant on his pleading guilty and the order of the learned Session court dated 17.07.2017 reads as follows:
“17.07.2017
The accused persons Jiten Pator and Motiram Pator are present.
The other accused person, namely, Sankar pator is produced from jail custody.
On earlier oc
