A plea of guilty cannot be the sole basis for conviction without ensuring it is voluntary and understood by the accused, particularly when the accused lacks legal representation.

JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

Heard Ms. Lhousino, the learned legal aid counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. V. Zhimomi, the learned Public Prosecutor, Nagaland.

2. The present revision application is directed against the judgment dated 28.08.2017 passed by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Dimapur, Nagaland (for short, ‘the learned Trial Court’) in GR Case No.1003/16 by which the petitioner was sentenced to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment for offence made out under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and to undergo 4 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 452 of the IPC. It was also directed that both the sentences shall run consecutively.

3. The facts of the instant case as it appears from the materials on record is that on 28.10.2016 at about 2:30 AM, the petitioner herein allegedly entered the house of his previous landlord in order to demand money as he was broke and unable to pay the rent. It was also alleged that the petitioner was serving in the house of the complainant from his age of 10 years as a helper and left their house after he got married. It was also alleged that the petitioner went to the house at 2.30 AM on 28.10.2016 equipped with a Naga dao, knife, wrench and a rope. It was also alleged that the petitioner entered the house of the complainant through the roof and while going through the passage, one maid servant by the name of Rama (Kachari) saw the petitioner and screamed so he hit her on the head with a dao and again he attacked one Mary Konyak, a maid servant of 13 years of age. Thereupon, the petitioner saw the owner of the house Mrs. Atula Jamir and was scared that she would recognize him though his face was covered so he ran away under the cover of darkness. It was also alleged that the petitioner did not stay in Nagaland and he took shelter at Duapathar village under Golaghat, Assam.

4. Subsequent to the incident, an FIR was lodged before the East Police Station, Dimapur which was registered and numbered as Dimapur East P.S. Case No.321/2016 under Sections 450/452/352/307/326 of the IPC. The petitioner was arrested with the help of Borpathar Police and brought to Nagaland. During the interrogation, the petitioner confessed to the crime before the Judicial Magistrate on 15.11.2016 and a Charge Sheet dated 15.11.2016 bearing Charge Sheet No.236/2016 under Sections 450/452/352/307/326 of the IPC against the petitioner was submitted.

5. This Court at this stage finds it very pertinent to mention that on 15.11.2016, the Confessional Statement of the petitioner was recorded. It is however interesting to note that at Page 2 of the records, there is an order dated 10.11.2016 which shows that the petitioner upon being arrested was remanded for 72 hours police custody for investigation. At Page 3 of the records, it is seen that there is an order dated 15.11.2016 wherein the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody and 30.11.2016 was fixed for appearance. However, at Page 4 of the records, there is an order dated 12.11.2016 which shows that the petitioner was produced from police custody with a prayer for judicial custody for 15 days which was allowed and the Court fixed the matter on 25.11.2016. On that very day, i.e. on 12.11.2016, an application was filed by the Investigating Officer praying for recording of the Confessional Statement of the petitioner under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the Code’). It is also mentioned in the order dated 12.11.2016 that the petitioner was explained of the legal consequences that would ensue. At Page 5 of the records, there is another order dated 15.11.2016 of the Court which stipulates that the Confessional Statement of the petitioner was recorded after the petitioner expressed his willingness. There is no mention of appearance of any counsel on behalf of the petitioner in the said order. The order dated 15.11.2016 also mentions that the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody t