Plea Bargaining And Reduced Sentences
๐ 1. What is Plea Bargaining?
Plea Bargaining is a legal process where the accused voluntarily agrees to plead guilty to the charges in exchange for a lesser punishment, reduced charges, or other concessions.
It is different from a full trialโit seeks to expedite justice while reducing the burden on the courts.
โ๏ธ 2. Legal Basis in India
Plea bargaining was introduced in India through the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2005, and is codified in:
Sections 265A to 265L of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)
๐ 3. Key Features of Plea Bargaining Under CrPC
| Feature | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Applicable Offences | Offences punishable with imprisonment < 7 years and not affecting the socio-economic condition of the country or involving a woman/child as victim. |
| Voluntary Nature | Must be initiated voluntarily by the accused. |
| Judicial Scrutiny | Court must ensure the plea is genuine and not coerced. |
| Compensation to Victim | Provisions exist for providing compensation as part of the agreement. |
| Reduced Sentence | The accused receives a lesser sentence as per the agreement. |
| No Appeal | No appeal allowed once plea bargaining is accepted. |
โ 4. Objectives of Plea Bargaining
Reduce delay in disposal of criminal cases
Ease prison overcrowding
Promote reformative justice
Encourage victim compensation
โ๏ธ 5. Landmark Case Laws on Plea Bargaining in India
๐น Case 1: State of Gujarat v. Natwar Harchandji Thakor (2005)
Facts:
Accused sought plea bargaining in a minor criminal case involving forgery.
Held:
Gujarat High Court emphasized that criminal justice should not be adversarial alone, and plea bargaining can serve reformative goals if applied carefully.
Significance:
Laid down the foundational philosophy supporting plea bargaining in India before the 2005 amendment.
๐น Case 2: Thippaswamy v. State of Karnataka (1983)
Facts:
Accused pleaded guilty in the hope of receiving a lighter sentence but later claimed coercion.
Held:
Supreme Court held that plea of guilt must be voluntary, and that using plea bargaining to induce confession is unconstitutional.
Significance:
This case was a cautionary precedent that influenced safeguards under the 2005 law.
๐น Case 3: Kasambhai v. State of Gujarat (1980)
Facts:
Plea bargaining was attempted in a corruption case.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that plea bargaining in serious offences like corruption is impermissible and can undermine public trust.
Significance:
Reinforced the principle that offences affecting public interest or morality are outside plea bargainingโs scope.
๐น Case 4: State of Uttar Pradesh v. Chandrika (2000)
Facts:
The accused pleaded guilty under a plea bargain, but the court rejected it.
Held:
Supreme Court held that plea bargaining has no place in the Indian criminal justice system as per then-existing law, but noted the increasing burden on courts.
Significance:
This case triggered debates that eventually led to the CrPC Amendment in 2005 legalizing plea bargaining under controlled circumstances.
๐น Case 5: Pankaj v. State of Rajasthan (2011)
Facts:
Accused charged with a bailable offence pleaded for lesser sentence.
Held:
Rajasthan High Court allowed the plea under Section 265B CrPC and awarded sentence of time already undergone, recognizing the voluntary and informed nature of the plea.
Significance:
Affirmed how courts can apply plea bargaining practically post-2005.
๐น Case 6: Santoshi Devi v. State of Bihar (2012)
Facts:
The accused was a woman involved in a petty theft case and moved for plea bargaining.
Held:
Court observed that for minor offences involving no harm to public interest, plea bargaining serves the reformative purpose of law and granted reduced punishment.
Significance:
Encouraged use of plea bargaining for women, first-time offenders, and poor accused.
๐น Case 7: Murlidhar Meghraj Loya v. State of Maharashtra (1976)
Facts:
Though pre-dating the 2005 law, this case dealt with inducement of confession in exchange for leniency.
Held:
The Supreme Court condemned coerced admissions, and warned against trading confession for lighter sentences.
Significance:
Laid early groundwork for ethical restrictions in applying plea deals.
๐งพ 6. Summary Table of Case Laws
| Case | Year | Key Holding |
|---|---|---|
| State of Gujarat v. Natwar Thakor | 2005 | Supported reformative justice via plea bargaining |
| Thippaswamy v. State of Karnataka | 1983 | Plea must be voluntary, not induced |
| Kasambhai v. State of Gujarat | 1980 | Corruption cases excluded from plea bargaining |
| State of U.P. v. Chandrika | 2000 | Plea bargaining not legally recognized at the time |
| Pankaj v. State of Rajasthan | 2011 | Sentence reduced under CrPC 265B |
| Santoshi Devi v. State of Bihar | 2012 | Applied in minor offence by a woman |
| Murlidhar v. State of Maharashtra | 1976 | Coerced pleas are unconstitutional |
๐ 7. Procedure of Plea Bargaining under CrPC (Simplified)
Application by Accused to the court under Section 265B CrPC.
Court Issues Notice to the Public Prosecutor and complainant.
Chamber Proceedings (in camera) to ensure voluntariness.
Preparation of a Mutual Disposition Report between parties.
Hearing by Magistrate/Judge to verify fairness.
Final Judgment and Sentence as per agreed terms.
No Appeal allowed under Section 265G CrPC.
โ ๏ธ 8. Offences Where Plea Bargaining is Not Allowed
Plea bargaining is not permitted for:
Offences punishable with death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment over 7 years.
Offences involving women or children as victims.
Socio-economic offences (e.g., corruption, black marketing).
Offences under special laws like NDPS, POCSO, SC/ST Act.
โ 9. Conclusion
Plea bargaining in India reflects a reformative and pragmatic approach to criminal justice. When used appropriately, it:
Reduces trial pendency
Ensures speedy justice
Offers rehabilitation over harsh punishment
However, it must be applied with strict judicial oversight to avoid misuse or coercion.
RELATED Blog
0 comments