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

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

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

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

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

The appellant has been incarcerated since 2013

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

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

Section 302 of the IPC regarding the punishment for murder

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

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

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"

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

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

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

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