STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH versus CHANDRIKA

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 239 · Decided: 29-10-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 
v. 
CHANDRIKA 
OCTOBER 29, 1999 
[K.T. THOMAS AND M.B. SHAH, JJ] 
Criminal trial-Criminal case-Disposal on the basis of plea 
bargaining-Held, not permissible. 
A 
B 
Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 302, 304, 307 and 34-Murder- C 
Accused-Conviction by Trial Court under section 304-Appeal-Acceptance 
of plea bargaining by High Court--Conviction of accused under section 304 
upheld but sentence altered to the period of imprisonment already undergone-
Appeal before High Court-Acceptance of plea bargaining by High Court 
held illegal and erroneous--Concept of plea bargaining held against public D 
policy--Court should decide case on merits-if accused corifesses his guilt 
Court should impose appropriate sentence-Mere acceptance of guilt by 
accused is no ground to reduce sentence. 
The respondent along with two other accused persons was charged 
under Section 302 read with sections 307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, E 
1860. The Sessions Judge convil:ted him under Section 304 and sentenced 
him to undergo eight years' rigorous imprisonment. ID this appeal to the High 
Court the re.pondent opted not to challenge the findings of conviction recorded 
by the High Court with a view to bargain on the question of sentence. The 
High Court accepted the plea bargain and maintained the conviction of 
respondent under section 304 Part I, but altered the sentence to the period of 
imprisonment already undergone plus a fine of Rs. 5000 and in default of 
payment rigorous imprisonment for six months. In its judgment the High 
Court did not state as to what was the actual period of imprisonment undergone 
by the respondent but observed that as the incident had taken place long back 
F 
and since the appellant had been in jail for sometime both as undertrial G 
prisoner and as a convict it was desirable to substitute his remaining period 
of jail sentence awarded by the Trial Court. 
In State's appeals to this Court, on the legality of 'plea bargaining': 
239 
H 
240 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD : 1, The order passed by the High Court is on the face of it, illegal 
and erroneous. The concept of 'plea bargaining' is not recognised and is 
against public policy under criminal justice system. Section 320 of the 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 provides for compounding or certain offences 
B 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 
. C Judge can bargain that evidence would not be led or appreciated in 
consideration of getting Oee bite sentence by pleading guilty. 
(241-H; 242-A, BJ 
2. 1t' 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 
D confesses his guilt, appropriate sentence is required to be imposed. Further, 
the approach of the Court in appeal or revision 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 
E there is sufficient evidence to connect the accused with the crime, then also 
the Court's conscience 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 
F he is pleading guilty sentence be reduced. Consequently, the impugned order 
passed by the High Court is quashed and set aside. The High Court is directed 
to decide the appeals on merits in accordance with law. (245-E-F-G; 246-A) 
Madan/al Ram Chandra Daga etc. v. State of Maharashtra, (1968) 3 
SCR 34; Murlidhar Meghraj Loya v. State of Maharashtra, [1976) 3 SCC 
G 684; Ganeshmal Jashraj v. Government of Gujarat and Anr., (1980) 1 sec 
363; Thippaswamy v. State of Karnataka, [1983) 1 SCC 194 and Kucchia 
Patel Shanti/al Kader/al v. Sta

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.