INTRODUCTION
The adage ‘Justice Delayed Equal Justice Denied’ corresponds to the plea-bargaining concept. One deal that can be conducted during the criminal investigation is plea bargaining. This legally enforceable compromise originated between the prosecution and the committing party. According to the preceding contract, the trial must agree to a penalty, and the person being charged must confess to practicing an offense. He is willing to acknowledge his guilt at this point, but he asks for a distinct sentencing. Following that, it is a legal arrangement that incorporates oversight by the court of the criminal investigation.
Using plea bargaining within criminal prosecutions occurred to cater to the deplorable situation, which was shown by the appalling conditions of undertrial detainees in jail, an enormous stack of cases, and delays in the finalisation of punishable cases and appellate proceedings. On the alternative hand, those who are supportive of the plea-bargaining execution contend that it truly weakens the law’s ability to forestall crime, encourages dramatic and contrary grace concerning the penalised process for admitted criminals, and is cruel in that it manipulates the defendant into announcing to feelings of guilty as payment for a reduced prison term or forfeits their right to sensing when saying for additional advantages.
Murlidhar Meghraj Loya v Maharashtra State was the very initial time the practice of plea bargaining was acknowledged by India’s topmost court. According to the court, the plea-bargaining process may be used in certain situations to accelerate or speed up the conclusion of criminal hearings, even though it is not permitted by this Code of Criminal Procedures.
WHAT IS PLEA BARGAINING?
Plea and bargain are the two pieces that make up the notion of a plea bargain. ‘Bargaining’ means ‘Negotiation’, and ‘Plea’ means ‘Request’. In common parlance, it denotes a strategy whereby an individual liable for misconduct negotiates with the prosecutor to acknowledge convictions for something that is not as serious as negotiating a sentence that is less severe than what the law permits. Plea bargaining is a technique by which the criminal accepts admission of culpability for a minor offense as a bargain for the prosecuting attorney and the violator jointly agreeing to a reduced conviction or the cancellation of all further accusations.
Plea bargaining was rejected by the Supreme Court as being unlawful and unconstitutional in the State of UP v Chandrika. The Supreme Court noted that using plea bargaining instead of penalties was improper and that the main aim of this idea was to speed up case resolution and decrease the burden on the system of justice.
VARIETIES OF PLEA BARGAINING
- In charge Negotiation is a common and well-known kind of appeal. Any reliable allegations (counts) or offenses committed against an aggressor at the hearing. Usually, lawyers will accept an ‘Evaluated Culpability’ confession on a lower charge in exchange for dropping more serious charges. If someone gets punished for breaking at night, the prosecutor may offer the defendants a plea arrangement.
- The custom of dropping criminal charges in exchange for less time in prison is known as sentence bargaining. This prevents the prosecution from putting their case forward and going to trial.
- One type of bargaining that judges commonly prohibit because they feel it could weaken the criminal justice framework is fact-finding bargaining. It indicates an accord reached by the parties within predicted matters or proof that can either be disclosed or omitted from the trial. Only a few facts are put forth to the judge using this strategy.
- Count bargaining is a legal manoeuvre wherein the violator pleads guilty to some of the charges the investigating attorney has brought against them while receiving others waived.
PLEA BARGAINING LAWS IN THE INDIAN COURT SYSTEM
Plea bargaining was approved under the Indian legal system in 2005 when the 1973 version of the Code of Procedure for Criminals was revised as part of the Criminal Law. The Code of Criminal Procedure Code’s Chapter XXI A now includes a whole portion of plea bargaining attributable to the 2005 modification.
The Criminal Code’s Sections 265-A through 265-L clarify the guidelines that control plea negotiations in India.
These Sections allow for the following:
- Plea agreements are solely available for felonies that incur fines or a maximum penalty of seven years in a jail cell. Additionally, some offences, such as those targeting women or children as well as people regulated by particular legislation, which includes the Narcotics Drug and Psychiatric Drug Act—are not considered to be suitable for plea bargaining.
- The person receiving charges and their attorney might ask the court to approve the plea of guilty as a compromise over a reduced sentence to begin the plea negotiating process.
- The prosecutor’s lawyers, who participate in the entire procedure, must compromise on the terms of the plea deal.
- Before launching the plea negotiating process, the court will hold an initial hearing to determine the charged person’s intentions and understanding of the implications. If the judge determines that the plea was freely and intentionally entered into, then every term of the agreement will apply.
- Plea bargains are unable to appeal their decision; nevertheless, they may apply for revision to argue against the validity of their punishment. The prosecutor may also apply for reconsideration if they feel that the sentence that was imposed as a result of a plea agreement is too moderate.
It is vital to remember that the parameters of the plea bargain are influenced by the case’s facts and also the investigator’s and judge’s discretion.
In the case of Government of Gujarat v Natwar Harchandji Thakor, the court emphasised the value of plea bargaining, but it additionally maintained that all “pleading of liable” in a case involving crime should be put under awareness separately rather than in a sequence of events.
SUGGESTIONS
- Plea bargain has many deficiencies, but instead of calling for its elimination, we should embrace it as a natural, if not entirely inevitable, part of our hostile system.
- The Apex Court ruled by Kasambhai Ardul Rehmanbhai v State of Gujarat that bargaining for a plea breaches the public interest.
- Educating all parties involved in the legal system on the clause is the first step towards a successful plea negotiating proximity. The laws governing plea bargains are unfamiliar to many.
- Plea bargaining is restricted in specific situations. Plea bargaining has been banned by Section 265A in the 1973 Code of Criminal Procedure for offences carrying a sentence of exceeding seven years in prison, as well as for crimes against women and children and major socioeconomic offences. Lawmakers have to reconsider India’s plea-bargaining system and remove its barrier for dealing with far more significant offences, particularly financial crimes.
- The Criminal Code contains no regulations for rejecting a plea-bargaining application submitted under section 265B. In turn, the accused must adhere to the legal process when a motion is made. Chapter XXIA requires to be changed to provide an excuse to drop the plea-bargaining proposal to avert such a scenario.
- A provision chapter requiring parolees and jail directors to host classes in bars that educate undertrial inmates about both the pros and cons of plea bargaining should be covered in Chapter XXIA of the CrPC.
- An impartiality judge might be established to receive and review plea-bargaining applications to increase transparency and reduce bias.
CONCLUSION
The explanation previously provided drives us to the conclusion that plea bargaining is a form of negotiation that may be hired during a criminal trial. Both the defendant and the prosecution accepted the agreement. The previously stated agreement stipulates that a sentence shall be agreed upon by the suspect and the authorities. Plea bargaining is also adaptable it meets the criteria of the courts and society.
In 2005, the Government adopted the Penal Amendments Bill due to the Supreme Court’s advice that plea bargaining be allowed. A report suggests that because beginner justices in the country have not complied with chapter XXI A in the statutory Code of Conduct in Criminal Procedure, the courts have a past of making unwise choices while performing plea bargaining. Analysing the significance of other wrongdoings must be completed in the current situation.
Author(s) Name: Rishabh Krishan (Amity University, Jharkhand)
