IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for caution and prudence in accepting a plea of guilty, especially in cases of serious offences such as murder, and the importance of ensuring that the accused fully understands the nature of the allegations and admits all the elements of the offence before accepting a plea of guilt.

JUDGMENT :

K. Lakshman, J.

Heard Mrs. C. Vasundhara Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. C. Prathap Reddy, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent.

2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 20.10.2014 in S.C. No.369 of 2014 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.

3. The appellant herein is the sole accused in S.C. No.369 of 2014. The offence alleged against him is under Section - 302 of IPC. Vide the impugned judgment dated 20.10.2014, the trial Court convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offence and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for LIFE and also to pay a fine of Rs.100/- (Rupees one hundred only). The trial Court recorded conviction against the appellant on the ground that he has pleaded guilty of the offence charged against him.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant -accused would submit that while convicting the appellant, the trial Court did not follow the procedure laid down under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’), more particularly Section 229 of the Cr.P.C. The consequences of pleading guilty were not explained to the appellant after framing of the charge. Therefore, the impugned judgment is without following due procedure laid down under the Cr.P.C. and also the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions.

5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor would contend that the trial Court explained the procedure to the accused, charge was framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu language and after due understanding of the contents of the charge, consequences thereof, the appellant-accused voluntarily pleaded guilty of the offence charged stating that he committed murder of his wife. On consideration of the said facts, the trial Court recorded conviction against the appellant. There is no error in it. Thus, the present appeal filed by the appellant is not maintainable as per Section 375 of Cr.P.C.

6. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, it is relevant to note that Section - 228 of the Cr.P.C. deals with framing of charge, and the same is extracted as under:

“28. Framing of charge.

(1) If, after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which-

(a) is not exclusively triable by the Court of Session, he may, frame a charge against the accused and, by order, transfer the case for trial to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, and thereupon the Chief Judicial Magistrate shall try the offence in accordance with the procedure for the trial of warrant- cases instituted on a police report;

(b) is exclusively triable by the Court, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused.

(2) Where the Judge frames any charge under clause (b) of sub- section (1), the charge shall be read and explained to the accused and the accused shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried.”

7. Section - 229 of the Cr.P.C. deals with conviction on plea of guilty, and the same is also extracted as under:

“229. Conviction on plea of guilty. If the accused pleads guilty, the Judge shall record the plea and may, in his discretion, convict him thereon.”

8. Perusal of the aforesaid provisions would show that the trial Court after framing of charge shall read and explain the same to the accused and the accused shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged and claims to be tried.

9. If an accused pleads guilty, the Judge shall record the plea and may, in his discretion convict him thereon. It is apt to note that the word used is ‘may’. Though the accused pleads guilty, it is not compulsory that the trial Court shall record conviction against an accused. Generally, the plea is not accepted in a capital case, though there is nothing illegal in doing so if the Court is satisfied that the accused understands all the essential elements of the cri