- The apex court noticed that at times the accused have hesitancy in accepting their conviction under a particular offence which may lead to other civil consequences.
- The reluctance of accused persons to avail "plea bargaining" option due to the fear of bearing the taint of guilt thus becomes a major issue to be dealt with.
- However, the Court noted that Indian law permits plea bargaining only with respect to the sentence and not with respect to the nature of offence.
- Amicus Curiae, Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jain, apprised that such a course can be adopted in India without legislative action, merely by applying the principle of 'Alford plea' and the 'nolo contendere plea' prevalent in the USA.
- Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh observed that both the pleas permit an accused to maintain their innocence, while conceding conviction.
- The acceptance of the plea by the courts depends upon the nature of the crime and the impact of the crime on the victim.
- The judgement arises from a case wherein the petitioner had been provided legal assistance only after he had spent 18 years in custody - Sonadar v. State of Chhattisgarh.
- It was brought to the Bench's attention that in some states the life convicts are apprehensive that if they agree to not contest plea and their application for remission is also rejected, they would be left in the lurch.
- Supreme Court Explores Options of Allowing Accused to Consent For Lesser Sentence While Not Conceding Guilt.
- The Bench also indicated that the involvement of the Court in the process would ensure that there is judicious application of guidelines that may be laid down to distinguish unique or more heinous crimes.
"Loved reading this piece by Krisha Mehta?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
