A contradictory plea of "guilty" alongside a request for trial necessitates a fresh trial.

In brief

The question

1. Whether a conviction can be sustained when the record of the plea is contradictory, showing both a plea of guilt and a claim to be tried

The court held

The High Court set aside the conviction order dated July 20, 2018, and the impugned judgment dated September 27, 2018

It also directed

The court remanded the case back to the Court of Sessions Judge, Ukhrul, for a trial de novo/retrial. The Sessions Court was directed to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible, taking into account the appellant's 13-year period of incarceration

01Facts

The appellant was accused of assaulting his stepmother with a bamboo-handled dao on August 10, 2013, leading to her death

p. 3

On September 27, 2018, the Sessions Judge, Ukhrul, in S.T. Case No. 8 of 2017, convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine of fifty thousand rupees

pp. 2-3

The conviction was based on a recorded plea where the appellant purportedly pleaded guilty

p. 3

However, the same record simultaneously noted that the appellant "pleaded for having the case tried in accordance with law"

pp. 3, 5-6

The appellant has been incarcerated since 2013

p. 6

02Issues

i.1. Whether a conviction can be sustained when the record of the plea is contradictory, showing both a plea of guilt and a claim to be tried

p. 5, para 9

ii.2. Whether the matter should be remanded for a fresh trial/retrial under the powers of the Appellate Court

p. 6, para 12

03Law Applied

Section 302 of the IPC regarding the punishment for murder

p. 3

Section 386 of the Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 427 of the BNSS, 2023), which empowers an Appellate Court to reverse a finding and sentence and direct a retrial by a court of competent jurisdiction

p. 6

Section 222(2) of the Cr.P.C., which allows for conviction of a minor offence (such as Section 304 Part II) when the facts of the major offence (Section 302) are not fully proved

pp. 5-6

Provisions in the judgment · 6 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 300 Section 302 Section 304

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 222 Section 386

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 427

04Reasoning

The High Court observed a fundamental procedural irregularity in the Sessions Court’s judgment. A perusal of the trial record revealed a "question and answer" format where the appellant's response was internally inconsistent: he allegedly "pleaded guilty" while simultaneously stating he "wanted to be tried according to law"

p. 5

The court found that such a contradictory plea cannot form the legal basis for a conviction without a full trial.

p. 5

Furthermore, the High Court noted that while the appellant sought to be considered under the lesser charge of Section 304 Part II (Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder), the Sessions Court awarded the maximum sentence under Section 302 without any substantive discussion on sentencing

p. 3

Given these discrepancies and the fair concession by the State Public Prosecutor, the court determined that the interests of justice necessitated a fresh trial

pp. 5-6