Plea-bargained guilty plea cannot support sentence enhancement where leniency induced an unfair waiver of defence rights.

A guilty plea induced by an assurance of leniency through plea-bargaining was treated as inconsistent with Article 21 because an accused may waive the right to defend on a mistaken belief about a light sentence. Where the sentence appears disproportionately low as a result of such bargaining, it is not fair or just to rely on the plea to enhance punishment in appeal or revision. The conviction and sentence were therefore set aside, and the matter was remanded for trial so the accused could contest the charge properly.

---

---

Issues: Whether a conviction based on a guilty plea obtained through plea-bargaining could be used to enhance the sentence in appeal or revision, and whether the proper course was to set aside the conviction and remand the matter for trial afresh.

Analysis: Acceptance of a plea of guilty induced by an assurance of leniency was held to be inconsistent with Article 21 of the Constitution of India, because an accused may be deprived of the opportunity to defend himself on the basis of a mistaken belief that he would receive only a light sentence. Where a disproportionately low sentence appears to have resulted from plea-bargaining, it is not fair or just to act upon the guilty plea for the purpose of enhancing punishment. In such a situation, the conviction and sentence must be set aside and the accused afforded a proper opportunity to contest the charge.

Conclusion: The sentence could not lawfully be enhanced on the basis of the guilty plea; the conviction and sentence were set aside and the matter was remanded for trial in accordance with law.

---