Plea Bargaining in India: Scope, Benefits and Challenges.

Introduction

When someone commits a crime, the accused is punished for the crime committed, and the victim gets justice. However, if the accused is ready to compensate the victim, then it can be done through the concept of plea bargaining. Here, the accused applies to the court. Reformers believe that plea bargaining is more suitable and flexible for society.

Evolution

1976: Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer opposed U.S.-style plea bargaining.[1]

1980: Justice P.N. Bhagwati condemned plea bargaining in health cases.[2]

1991: The 142nd Law Commission Report recommended plea bargaining.[3]

1996: The 154th Law Commission Report proposed Chapter XXIA in CrPC.[4]

2003: The Malimath Committee supported plea bargaining.[5]

2006: The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act introduced plea bargaining in CrPC.[6]

2023: Introduction of Bharatiya Nagrarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), a new criminal code.[7]

Though plea bargaining was discussed in various cases and commission reports, it was completely introduced as an amendment in the Code of Criminal Procedure on January 11, 2006. One of the most favoured arguments for plea bargaining was that it allows criminals to accept their crimes and be rehabilitated in society.

The rationale of plea bargaining

We always hear the phrase “Justice delayed is justice denied,” [8]the concept of plea bargaining may help in speedy trials of cases. With crores of unresolved cases that need urgent attention, Indian district and taluka courts are currently struggling with a substantial backlog. The legal system struggles to deliver prompt justice due to its overwhelming backlog of ongoing cases, and this delay has grown to be a serious concern. Notably, the problem of prison overcrowding is made worse by the fact that over 70% of Indian inmates are awaiting trial. Plea bargaining was introduced into the legal system to address these issues. This measure’s justification is to speed up the conclusion of criminal cases, which will lessen the number of extended incarcerations and ease the strain on the overburdened prison system. For the judicial system to be more effective, equitable, and accessible, these cases must be resolved quickly.

Scope

The concept of plea bargaining is not recognized by the criminal jurisprudence of India. It is an alternative in dealing with huge arrears of criminal cases. The concept of plea bargaining is beneficial for both the accused and the victim in criminal proceedings, as the accused can reduce his sentence and the victim may receive compensation, respectively. It also benefits the state for speedy trials. It is not applicable to socio-economic offenses and offenses against women and children.

Definition

Black’s Law Dictionary ^[9]defines a plea bargain as “a negotiated agreement between a prosecutor and a criminal defendant whereby the defendant pleads guilty to a lesser offense or one of the multiple charges in exchange for some concession by the prosecutor, usually a more lenient sentence or a dismissal of the other charges.

Meaning

The concept of plea bargaining in India draws inspiration from the doctrine of nolo contendere, which means “I do not wish to contend.”[10]

Plea bargaining is a form of negotiation. It is a pre-trial negotiation between the accused and the prosecution/victim in which the accused agrees to plead guilty for a lighter sentence. In other words, it is an agreement in a criminal case whereby the prosecution offers the defendant the opportunity to plead guilty to lesser charges in return for an agreed sentence or dismissal or reduction of charges.

Example:

If Mr. A was accused of an offense for which the minimum punishment was, say, 5 years, then in such cases the court can reduce the punishment to 2.5 years, i.e., half of such minimum punishment.

Types

Various types of plea bargaining are as follows:

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

Let us understand them one by one:

• Charge bargaining:

This is the most common type of bargaining. It involves instances wherein the accused agrees to plead guilty to a less serious charge than the original one in exchange for a reduced sentence or other concessions.

Example:

Mr. A is initially charged with assault causing severe injury, but he agrees to plead guilty to a charge of simple assault. In return, the prosecution agrees to recommend a reduced sentence, and the court imposes a lighter penalty, such as a shorter jail term.

• Sentence bargaining:

Most used type in India. Herein the accused pleads guilty to the original charge but negotiates for a lighter sentence. This might involve the prosecution agreeing to recommend a shorter prison term or alternative sentencing options like probation or community service.

Example:

Mr. B pleads guilty to the charge of theft, but she negotiates for a reduced sentence. The prosecution agrees to recommend a shorter prison term and proposes an alternative punishment like community service, sparing her from a long prison sentence.

• Fact bargaining:

In this type of plea bargaining, the defendant agrees to admit certain facts in the case. These facts can impact the charges or potential penalties.

Mr. C is accused of manslaughter, but he agrees to admit only to a lesser degree of negligence. The prosecution agrees to present fewer damaging facts, leading to a reduced charge and a more lenient sentence for him.

Benefits

IN GENERAL:

• Hassle-free approach
• Avoids publicity
• Fast disposal of cases

TO THE VICTIM:

Plea bargaining is a victim-oriented reform, as it focuses on their rights and also states that they go from being a side character in the criminal proceedings to becoming an important character.

• The victim can easily get compensation at the discretion of the court.
• Less expenditure of time and resources
• Has an effective role in the justice
• Eliminating the prolonged criminal trial and judicial process
• More cost-effective

TO THE ACCUSED:

• Mitigation of punishment, when, in the case of minimum punishment, the accused will get half of the sentence.
• In case the punishment is not provided, then the accused will get one-fourth of the punishment ordered.
• May be released on probation or admonition.
• The sentence already spent in judicial custody shall be set off against the term of imprisonment according to sec. 468 of BHARTIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023.[11]
• No appeal can be made against the judgment of plea bargaining.
• Can be used as a rehabilitative tool for first-time offenders.
• Protection against self-incrimination, where the statements/admissions made by the accused cannot be used against him.

TO THE JUDGE:

• Cases are disposed of quickly.
• Less burden on the courts.
• Can easily fulfill the obligation of constitutional obligation, i.e., “speedy trial.”
• Minimizes the risk of rulings being overturned.
• Can use resources for more serious offenses.

TO THE LAWYERS/PROSECUTOR:

• Quicker and requires less work
• Cost-effective
• Assured conviction of the accused in most cases
• Increase efficiency in their conviction rates.

Challenges

The concept of plea bargaining is effectively utilized in American courts; however, the Indian scenario is unfortunately disappointing for this concept. Though plea bargaining was introduced in the criminal procedure code in 2005[12], it has not proven to be successful.

1. Coercion: Involvement of police may lead to coercion, especially in custodial torture in India.
2. Corruption: As a victim-oriented reform, it also can lead to corruption and impartiality.
3. No right to appeal: Once a plea bargain is accepted, the accused is denied the right to appeal, except in certain specified circumstances.
4. Discretion of the court: Even when the accused pleads guilty, it remains at the court’s discretion to determine the sentence for the prisoners.
5. Minimum pursuit of justice: The concept of plea bargaining is to overcome practical considerations such as overburdened cases and resource constraints, but in this process, we are overshadowing the pursuit of justice.

Case laws

In Murlidhar Meghraj Loya vs. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1976 SC 1929)[13], the Hon’ble Supreme Court criticized the concept of plea bargaining and said that it intrudes upon society’s interests.

In Kasambhai vs. State of Gujarat (1980 AIR 854) & Kachhia Patel Shantilal Koderlal vs. State of Gujarat and Anr[14], the Apex Court said that plea bargaining is against public policy. Moreover, it regretted the fact that the magistrate accepted the plea bargaining of the accused.

Thippaswamy vs. the State of Karnataka, [1983] 1 SCC 194 [15], The court said that inducing or leading an accused to plead guilty under a promise or assurance would be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.

In the State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Chandrika, 2000 Cr.L.J. 384(386)[16] the Apex Court disparaged the concept of plea bargaining and held this practice as unconstitutional and illegal.

Conclusion

The concept of plea bargaining is not entirely new in India. India had already recognized it when it got its constitution in 1950. Article 20(3)[17] of the Indian constitution prohibits self-incrimination. People accuse plea bargaining of violating the said article. However, over time, considering the burden on the courts, the Indian judiciary has recognized the necessity of plea bargaining in the Indian legal system. Initially, accepting a change can be challenging, but as society evolves so, must are legal system should adapt. Everything has its benefits and challenges, and both aspects must be thoroughly analysed to reach a sound conclusion. Rejecting something solely based on its challenges is unjustifiable in any situation.

 

References

[1] Murlidhar Meghraj Loya v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 1929

[2] Kasambhai Abdulrehmanbhai Sheikh And … vs State of Gujarat and Anr. A.I.R 1980 S.C. 854,

[3]s3WaaS, Law commission of India, 2022/08, LAW COMMISSION’S REPORTS | Law Commission of India | India

[4] Law commission of India, Fourteenth Law Commission | Law Commission of India | India

[5] Divyanshi Singh, Indian Journal of Integrated Research in law, http://ijirl.com

[6] The criminal law amendment act, 2005

[7] Sec 289 to 300 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

[8] William Ewart Gladstone, House of Commons Debate, 16^th March, 1868

[9] K. Swamyraj, Textbook on The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Central Law Publications, 2023

[10] Latin phrase: nolo contendere

[11] Sec 468 of BNSS, 2023

[12] CrPC, 1973

[13] Murlidhar Meghraj Loya v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 1929

[14] Kasambhai Abdulrehmanbhai Sheikh And … vs State of Gujarat and Anr. AIR1980 SC 854

[15] Thippaswamy v. State of Karnataka, A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 747

[16] State of Uttar Pradesh v. Chandrika, A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 164.

[17] Article 20(3), The Constitution of India.