Report reveals minimal use of plea bargaining in India

by Admin
0 comment


The report sheds light on the underutilisation of plea bargaining as a mechanism for the disposal of criminal cases in India. File
| Photo Credit: Shiv Kumar Pushpakar

Nearly two decades after plea bargaining was introduced as one of the means to reduce the overwhelming pendency of cases in the courts, its application in India remains minimal, a recent report by the Ministry of Law and Justice has revealed.

The report titled โ€˜Access to Justice through Plea Bargaining as an Alternative Model to Traditional Criminal Trial in India: A Case Study of Select Indian Statesโ€™ was prepared by the Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (GGSIPU), Delhi, and released on July 8 by the Department of Law and Justice.

The report sheds light on the underutilisation of plea bargaining as a mechanism for the disposal of criminal cases in India. According to the latest National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data, of the 1,70,52,367 cases that went to trial in courts across the country in 2022, only 19,135 cases were disposed of through plea bargaining โ€” a mere 0.11%.

What it means

A โ€œplea bargainโ€ is a practice whereby the accused forgoes his right to plead not guilty and demand a full trial and instead uses a right to bargain for a benefit.

Plea bargaining was incorporated into the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in 2005 with the expectation that it would streamline the judicial process by allowing accused persons to admit guilt in exchange for leniency in sentencing. The procedure, outlined in Chapter XXIA of the CrPC, applies only to offences punishable by up to seven years of imprisonment, with further restrictions excluding cases involving crimes against women, children, or socio-economic offences.

Least used

Despite these provisions, the actual use of plea bargaining has been โ€œextremelyโ€ low, said the report submitted by Upma Gupta, Associate Professor, University School of Law and Legal Studies, GGSIPU.

โ€œPlea bargaining is a less lucrative alternative for an accused to end the proceedings in contrast with other mechanisms such as compounding (compromise), quashing (of criminal proceedings), and โ€˜witness turning hostileโ€™ (account of compromise between the parties) therefore it is rarely resorted to and also the least preferred mode of dissolution of dispute,โ€ the report stated.

The report also raised concerns over the clarity and consistency of the lawโ€™s application. It stated that plea bargaining applications ought to be entertained at a stage anterior to the framing of charges or serving of notice of accusation. โ€œBut in practice, the plea bargaining is done after the charges are framed,โ€ it said.

โ€œThe idea of non-applicability of plea bargaining is time and again reaffirmed by the courts in matters of economic crime, food offences, and other such cases,โ€ the report also said.

โ€œBut on the contrary, the NCRB reports reveal the practice of plea bargaining being accepted even in cases of offences against women and children, though the total number of cases in which plea bargaining is done is not very significant, rather is very less,โ€ the report added.

The 2022 NCRB report revealed that 119 cases of crimes against women and four cases registered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) were disposed of by plea bargaining.

Workability

The report suggested certain changes in the law in order โ€œto breathe new life intoโ€ it. โ€œThe Judge can proceed with plea bargaining after the accused has pleaded guilty and upon convinced of the fact that the accused has pleaded guilty, he will give both the parties a chance to work out a mutually satisfactory disposition,โ€ is one suggestion amongst others.

It also proposed that the task of working out mutually satisfactory disposition should be handed over from the court to the mediation cell in order to reduce the burden of the court, and that the court should step in to pass the final judgment.

โ€œIn case the offender does not have any criminal antecedents and the offence is punishable with imprisonment up to 3 years, then it [the court] may conditionally discharge the accused,โ€ the report also said.



Source link

Oh hi there ๐Ÿ‘‹ Itโ€™s nice to meet you.

Sign up to receive awesome content in your inbox, every day.

We donโ€™t spam! Read our privacy policy for more info.

You may also like

Leave a Comment