Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 20120
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P. G. Ajithkumar, J
LIJU ABRAHAM
– Appellant
Versus
JOY (CIVIL POLICE OFFICER) – Respondent
Crl.MC 9624 2022
JOHNSON GOMEZ, S.BIJU (KIZHAKKANELA), SANJAY JOHNSON, JOHN GOMEZ, ARUN JOHNY
The Mandatory recording of an accused's plea in their own words is essential for ensuring the validity of a conviction and upholding justice.
Headnote:
Guilty - Criminal Procedure - IPC Sections 279, 337, 338 - The court found that the lower court violated the procedural requirements in recording the accused's plea, impacting the validity of the conviction.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the order from a Magistrate's Court where the accused had pleaded guilty to traffic violations, claiming improper recording of the plea and flaws in the investigation regarding a road traffic accident.
Finding of the Court:
The court determined that the plea of guilty was not adequately recorded as required by law, resulting in a violation of procedural safeguards and impacting the validity of the conviction.
Issues: Whether the accused's guilty plea was properly recorded by the Magistrate and whether the investigation was conducted adequately.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of strict adherence to procedural requirements for recording pleas to ensure fair trial rights and concluded that the Magistrate's failure to fulfill these requirements invalidated the conviction.
Final Decision: The conviction and sentence imposed were set aside, and the matter was remitted for retrial.
ORDER
The above Crl.M.C. is filed with following prayers:
“a. Call for the record leading to Annexure A4 order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court III Perumbavoor in ST 402/2020 and quash the same.
b. To direct the Station House Officer Kuruppampady Police Station to conduct further investigation in Crime No.899/2019 registered as per Annexure A1 FIR.
c. Grant such other relief as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper.” (sic)
2. Annexure A4 is an order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -III, Perumbavoor in ST No.402 of 2020 by which it is stated that the accused pleaded guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 279 , 337, 338 IPC and he was imposed a fine of Rs.700/- and in default, he is directed to undergo simple imprisonment for 7 days. It is the case of the petitioners that the 1st petitioner was the de facto complainant in Crime No.899 of 2019 of Kuruppampady police station, which was registered under Sections 279 , 337 and 338 IPC. The same was registered on the complaint that the 3rd respondent was the driver of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-60/K-4142 and he driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner which resulted in a road traffic accident, in which the petitioners suffered serious injuries. It is the case of the petitioners that the 1st petitioner was a passenger while the 2nd petitioner was the driver of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-62/B-359 at the time of accident. Annexure A1 is the FIR. But in the final report, the investigating officer has named the petitioner No.2 as the accused, is the grievance. The investigating officer concluded that the petitioner No.2 is the accused on the basis of the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C of charge witnesses Nos.2, 3, 5, 6 and 7. Charge witness No.7 is the accused mentioned in Annexure A1 FIR and CW2 to 6 are the passengers in the offending car bearing Reg.No.KL-60/K-4142. The independent witness questioned by the police as charge witness No.9. Annexure A2 is the final report. It is the case of the petitioner that the incident, according to FIR, had happened on 23.08.2019 at about 5.30 hours. It is also the case of the petitioners that the police did not take any initiative to retrieve the CCTV footage of the accident from CCTV camera installed in front of the Hotel Elegance Bar, Pulluvazhy, Perumbavoor. Annexure A3 is the CCTV footage from the CCTV camera installed in front of the Hotel Elegance Bar Pulluvazhy, Perumbavoor. According to the petitioners, CCTV footage of the accident was collected by the petitioner, which would clearly shows that the offending vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-60/K-4142 driven by the 3rd respondent, was coming through the right side of the road from Perumbavoor to Muvattupuzha, while the vehicle driven by the petitioner No.2 was coming through left side of the road from Muvattupuzha to Perumbavoor. According to the petitioners, the investigating officers has not conducted a proper and scientific investigation. It is submitted that the petitioners entrusted the file to one lawyer and conducted the case. It is the case of the petitioners that the 2nd petitioner was advised to plead guilty in the case. It is also submitted that the petitioner No.2, without understanding the consequence of his act, entrusted a lawyer to plead guilty on his behalf and remit the necessary fine so as to avoid an arrest in the warrant stated to have been issued against him. That is why Annexure A1 order came into force is the submission. The contention of the petitioners is that Annexure A4 order is passed without properly recording the plea of the petitioners. The petitioners also relied on the judgment of this Court in Crl.R.P.No.227 of 2021.
3. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor.
4. This Court perused Annexure A4 order, which is an extract of the register of summary trials held before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-III in ST No.402 of 2020. In Column No.9 in Annexure A4 it is
