Plea Bargaining - CLAT PG PDF Download

Introduction

This article, authored by Lokesh Vyas from the Institute of Law at Nirma University, delves into the subject of plea bargaining in India. It explores the origins of plea bargaining in the country and the complex issues associated with it.
The widely recognized adage "Justice delayed is justice denied" assumes great importance in the context of discussing plea bargaining. The staggering backlog of cases in the courts is concerning, but it has unfortunately become a common occurrence for people. These once astonishing statistics no longer surprise anyone, as people have resigned themselves to this situation. The concept of plea bargaining was not initially a part of criminal law in India. Given this backdrop, Indian legal scholars and jurists introduced the concept into Indian criminal law. As the term itself suggests, plea bargaining is an agreement between the accused and the prosecutor, and many countries have embraced this concept in their criminal justice systems.

Meaning of Plea Bargaining

Plea bargaining is a pretrial negotiation between the accused and the prosecution where the accused agrees to plead guilty in exchange for certain concessions by the prosecution. It is a bargain where a defendant pleads guilty to a lesser charge and the prosecutors in return drop more serious charges. It is not available for all types of crime e.g. a person cannot claim plea bargaining after committing heinous crimes or for the crimes which are punishable with death or life imprisonment.

History of Plea Bargaining

The history of plea bargaining is rooted in the evolution of the jury system. Initially, there was no requirement for plea bargaining as there was no provision for legal representation. However, in 1960, legal representation was permitted, and this marked the need for plea bargaining. While the origins of plea bargaining can be traced back to American legal history, this concept has been in use since the 19th century. Judges used plea bargaining as a method to incentivize confessions.

Plea Bargaining in India

Plea Bargaining is not an indigenous concept of Indian legal system. It is a part of the recent development of Indian Criminal Justice System (ICJS). It was inculcated in Indian Criminal Justice System after considering the burden of long-standing cases on the Judiciary.

Criminal Procedure Code and Plea Bargaining

Sections 265A to 265L in Chapter XXIA of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) address the concept of plea bargaining. This section was introduced through the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2005, and it allows for plea bargaining in cases that meet the following criteria:

• Where the maximum punishment is imprisonment for up to 7 years.
• Where the offenses do not significantly affect the socio-economic condition of the country.
• When the offenses are not committed against women or children below 14 years of age.

The concept of plea bargaining was first recommended in India by the 154th Report of the Law Commission. It was seen as an alternative method to deal with the backlog of criminal cases in Indian courts. Subsequently, a committee led by Justice V.S. Malimath was formed under the NDA government to address the increasing number of criminal cases. The Malimath Committee recommended the implementation of the plea bargaining system in India, emphasizing its potential to expedite case disposal and reduce the burden on the courts. The committee also pointed to the success of plea bargaining in the USA to support its importance.

To make this recommendation a reality, the draft Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill, 2003 was introduced in Parliament. It aimed to amend the Indian Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the Indian Evidence Act to improve the existing criminal justice system in India. The bill primarily focused on issues like witnesses turning hostile, plea bargaining, compounding the offense under Section 498A of the IPC, and evidence of scientific experts in cases involving fake currency notes.

Chapter XXIA, Sections 265A to 265L, was introduced as a part of this amendment, bringing the concept of plea bargaining to India. These sections outline the eligibility criteria, application process, and procedure for plea bargaining in India.

• Section 265-A (Application of Chapter) specifies that plea bargaining is available for accused individuals charged with offenses that do not carry the death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment exceeding seven years. The Central Government has the power to notify which offenses are eligible for plea bargaining.
• Section 265-B (Application for Plea Bargaining) allows an accused person to file an application for plea bargaining in pending cases. The application should include case details, the nature of the offense, the accused's criminal history, and a statement of voluntary preference for plea bargaining. The court will issue notices to the concerned parties, including the public prosecutor, investigating officer, victim, and accused, for a plea bargaining meeting.
• Section 265-C (Guidelines for Mutually Satisfactory Disposition) outlines the procedure for mutually satisfactory disposition, with participants from both sides, in cases instituted on a police report or complaint.
• Section 265-D (Report of Mutually Satisfactory Disposition) describes the preparation and submission of a report on the mutually satisfactory disposition. If such a disposition is not achieved, the court will proceed with the case.
• Section 265-E (Disposal of the Case) explains the process of disposing of cases when a mutually satisfactory disposition is reached, allowing for probation or punishment, with certain conditions and considerations.
• Section 265-F (Judgment of the Court) addresses the pronouncement of the judgment in terms of mutually satisfactory disposition.
• Section 265-G (Finality of Judgment) states that no appeal is allowed against such a judgment, but special leave petitions or writ petitions can be filed.
• Section 265-H (Power of the Court in Plea Bargaining) discusses the court's powers related to bail, trial procedures, and other matters in plea bargaining cases under the CrPC.
• Section 265-I (Period of Detention Undergone by the Accused to Be Set Off Against the Sentence of Imprisonment) applies Section 428 of the CrPC to set off the period of detention against the imposed sentence of imprisonment.
• Section 265-J (Savings) clarifies that the provisions of this chapter take precedence over inconsistent provisions in other parts of the CrPC.
• Section 265-K (Statement of the Accused to Be Used) restricts the use of statements or facts stated by the accused in the plea bargaining application for any purpose other than those outlined in the chapter.
• Section 265-L (Non-Application of the Chapter) specifies that this chapter does not apply to juveniles or children, as defined in the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.

Types of Plea Bargaining

Plea Bargaining is generally of three types namely:-

1. Sentence bargaining;
2. Charge bargaining;
3. Fact bargaining.

Plea Bargaining and Judicial Pronouncements

• In the case of Murlidhar Meghraj Loya vs. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1976 SC 1929), the Supreme Court criticized the concept of plea bargaining, expressing concerns that it interferes with the interests of society.
• In cases like Kasambhai vs. State of Gujarat (1980 AIR 854) and Kachhia Patel Shantilal Koderlal vs. State of Gujarat and Anr, the Supreme Court stated that plea bargaining is against public policy. The Court expressed regret over magistrates accepting plea bargains and described this concept as highly reprehensible. Additionally, the Court deemed plea bargaining illegal, unconstitutional, and a practice that tends to encourage corruption and collusion.
• In Thippaswamy vs. State of Karnataka, [1983] 1 SCC 194, the Court noted that inducing or leading an accused to plead guilty under a promise or assurance would violate Article 21 of the Constitution. In such cases, the Court of appeal or revision should set aside the conviction and sentence of the accused and remand the case to the trial court for the accused to defend himself against the charge, and if found guilty, to pass a proper sentence.
• In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Chandrika 2000 Cr.L.J. 384(386), the Supreme Court criticized the concept of plea bargaining, declaring it unconstitutional and illegal. The Court held that criminal cases should not be disposed of solely based on plea bargaining. Instead, cases should be decided on their merits. The Court emphasized that if an accused confesses his guilt, he must receive the appropriate sentence as required by the law.
• In the State Of Gujarat vs. Natwar Harchandji Thakor (2005) 1 GLR 709, the Court recognized the importance of plea bargaining but clarified that every "plea of guilty" should not automatically be considered as "plea bargaining." The Court noted that the appropriateness of plea bargaining should be determined on a case-by-case basis, considering the evolving nature of law and society. The Court stressed that the primary objective of the law is to provide easy, cost-effective, and expeditious justice by resolving disputes.

Arguments against Plea Bargaining in India

Voluntary Nature

Plea bargaining, as per the legal provisions, is a voluntary mechanism that is only considered when the accused willingly chooses it. However, there is no legal clarity on the situation where the settlement reached contradicts the objectives of the legal system.

Police Involvement

The participation of the police in plea bargaining has drawn criticism, especially given India's reputation for police custodial torture. In such a context, plea bargaining may exacerbate the situation.

Corruption

The involvement of victims in the plea bargaining process is also seen as problematic, as it could lead to corrupt practices that undermine the intended purpose of this system.

Lack of Independent Judicial Oversight

The plea bargaining provisions lack provisions for an independent judicial authority to assess plea bargaining applications, which is a major point of criticism.

In-Camera Examination

The in-camera examination of the accused by the court may result in public cynicism and distrust of the plea-bargaining system. Failure to keep confidential any court order rejecting an application could also create biases against the accused.

Not a Comprehensive Solution

Plea bargaining was introduced to address issues such as jail overcrowding, high acquittal rates, and torture suffered by undertrial prisoners. However, the underlying cause of these issues is the delay in the trial process, which can be attributed to various factors in India, including the functioning of investigative agencies and the judiciary, personal interests of lawyers, and more. Therefore, the need of the hour is not a trial substitute but a comprehensive system overhaul, addressing structure, composition, and work culture to ensure reasonably swift trials.

Arguments for Plea Bargaining in India

Efficient Case Resolution

Plea bargaining in India offers the advantage of expediting case resolutions, benefiting both the prosecution and the defense. It minimizes the risk of complete loss at trial, allowing attorneys to negotiate more effectively. This efficient process aids in resolving long-standing disputes and lessens the burden of excessive case files on the courts. Additionally, plea bargaining conserves valuable resources for cases that genuinely require them.

Mitigation of Record for Less Serious Offenses

In a society like India, reputation and societal stigmatization hold significant importance. Once an individual is stigmatized, survival can become extremely challenging, often leading to social ostracism. In this context, plea bargaining enables individuals to plead guilty or no contest in exchange for a reduction in the number of charges or the severity of the offenses. This results in the recording of less serious offenses on the accused's official court records. This can prove advantageous for the accused in potential future convictions, as their prior record may be less damning.

Simplified Legal Process

India is notorious for protracted legal proceedings, with cases often dragging on for 8-10 years, causing suffering to both parties involved. There have been cases where accused individuals spend more time in jail awaiting trial than the maximum punishment for which they were accused. Such instances highlight a significant infringement of human rights. Plea bargaining allows individuals to plead guilty without the need to hire a lawyer. In contrast, if they were to proceed to trial, they would be compelled to find and engage a lawyer, spend considerable time preparing for trial, and incur legal expenses. The plea bargaining system protects the interests of individuals by avoiding the complexities and hardships associated with pending cases.

Privacy and Reduced Publicity

Furthermore, plea bargaining serves as an effective mechanism for avoiding unwanted publicity. As cases prolong, the level of public attention and scrutiny on the accused tends to increase. Plea bargaining, through its swift case resolution, minimizes such publicity. This feature is particularly beneficial for individuals, whether they are well-known public figures or ordinary citizens, who rely on their reputation within the community for their livelihood. It enables them to escape unnecessary stigmatization. While news of the plea itself may become public, it remains in the spotlight for a significantly shorter duration compared to a full-fledged trial.

How to be a master at Plea Bargaining

There is no straight jacket formula or mathematical precision to gain expertise at Plea bargaining. Expertise comes with experience and to have an experience of something we need to step in that thing.

To become a master of plea bargaining one has to be good at negotiations and communication. At the end of the day, Plea Bargaining boils down to the bargaining. It is about how well you bargain for your client. The better you bargain the better results you bring to your client. To become a master of plea bargaining one need to be abreast of the facts and the relevant laws. Your convincing power is one thing which makes you different. In the legal arena, cases are unique in themselves, every case brings new opportunity to learn. The more plea bargaining you do, the more expertise you will have. Except for these skills, logical and analytical reasoning skills are very relevant for Plea Bargaining because it is very difficult to defy a statement backed by sound reasoning. Therefore, a conglomeration of all these skills makes you a master of plea bargaining.

Conclusion

The concept of plea bargaining is not entirely new in India. Indian has already recognized it when it got its constitution in 1950. Article 20(3) of Indian constitution prohibits self-incrimination. People accuse plea bargaining of violatory of the said article. But with the passage of time the considering the encumbrance on the courts, the Indian court has felt the need of Plea bargaining in Indian legal system. When a change is brought it is hard to accept it initially but society needs to grow so is our legal system. Everything has advantages and disadvantages and both have to be analyzed in order reach a sound conclusion. Rejecting something only on the basis of its disadvantages would not be justified in any case. The concept of plea bargaining is evolving in India and it is not appropriate to expect it to be perfect. It can only be improved by debate, discussions, and discourses.