2021 (6) TMI 1173 - HC - Indian Laws

Conviction overturned after court finds monosyllabic 'yes' answer insufficient for valid guilty plea under criminal procedure

Raseen Babu K.M. Versus The State of Kerala

Kerala HC set aside conviction based on alleged guilty plea, finding the procedure patently illegal. The accused initially pleaded not guilty when charges ... Conviction by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I - judgments are challenged mainly on the ground that the procedure adopted by the trial court in finding the accused to have pleaded guilty was patently illegal - HELD THAT:- On scrutiny of the diary extract and records received from the lower court, it is seen that the court charge in the cases was framed and read over to the accused on 09.03.2017. Thereafter, the accused were asked whether they had committed the offences and they answered in the negative. This plea of not guilty was recorded and the cases posted for prosecution evidence. After a few adjournments, the cases were taken up on 24.04.2018, on which day, the question whether the accused had committed the offences was repeated. This time the accused answered 'yes'. This answer was treated as pleading of guilt and the accused were convicted. Surprisingly, in the questionnaire containing the replies given by the accused, the answer of the first accused to the question whether he had committed the offences, is not seen entered. In JUPUDI ANAND GUPTA VERSUS STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. [2017 (10) TMI 1654 - SUPREME COURT], the decision in Mahant Kaushalya Das was followed and the conviction of the appellant, based on his alleged plea of guilty, which the trial court had failed to record, was set aside. The proposition laid down by the above decisions is that the plea of guilty should not only be recorded, but such recording should, to the extent possible, be in the words spoken by the accused. As far as the instant case is concerned, the petitioner having pleaded not guilty at the first instance, recording of the monosyllabic answer 'yes' in the questionnaire prepared at the stage of framing charge, cannot, under any circumstance, be termed as pleading of guilt by the petitioner, based on which the court could have convicted him. As such, the judgments convicting the petitioner are liable to be set aside. The criminal revision petitions are allowed by setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner. Matters remitted to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Parappanangadi for retrial in accordance with law. Issues Involved:The judgment involves the conviction of the petitioner by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I in connection with two crimes arising from an incident at a school festival. The main issue is the legality of the procedure adopted by the trial court in finding the accused to have pleaded guilty.Conviction Based on Plea of Guilty:The petitioner's counsel argued that the conviction based on a plea of guilty should be voluntary, clear, and unambiguous. The petitioner contended that the plea was not made voluntarily, and the judgment was challenged for non-application of mind. The legal meaning of the words 'plea' and 'guilty' was discussed to emphasize the importance of a genuine and informed admission of guilt by the accused.Procedural Compliance and Precedents:The court scrutinized the procedure followed by the trial court and highlighted discrepancies in recording the plea of guilt. Reference was made to Sections 240 and 241 of the Cr.P.C., emphasizing the strict adherence required in recording and accepting a plea of guilty. Precedents such as Surath Chandra v. State and Mahant Kaushalya Das v. State of Madras were cited to underscore the mandatory nature of correctly recording the accused's admission of guilt.Requirements Before Accepting Plea of Guilty:The judgment outlined the essential requirements that must be met before acting upon the plea of guilt by an accused. These include framing the charge, explaining it to the accused, ensuring the plea is voluntary and clear, recording the plea in the accused's own words, and the Magistrate's discretion in accepting the plea and imposing suitable punishment.Permissibility of Changing Plea During Trial:The question of whether an accused can change their plea from not guilty to guilty at a later stage of the trial was discussed. While the Code of Criminal Procedure provides specific opportunities for pleading guilty, the judgment referred to a case law suggesting flexibility in allowing the accused to admit guilt at any stage of the trial. However, the judgment indicated the need for reconsideration of this position in light of subsequent legal developments.Decision and Order:Ultimately, the criminal revision petitions were allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner. The cases were remitted for retrial in accordance with the law, emphasizing the importance of procedural compliance and the voluntary nature of admitting guilt in criminal proceedings.