INTRODUCTION
Plea bargaining is a settlement between the prosecution and the defence where the defendant pleads guilty to a lesser charge in exchange for a lighter sentence[1]. Plea bargaining has a long history within the American legal system. Originally, this practice was informal, but it has since evolved into a standardised procedure[2]. In the United States, plea bargaining is the keystone in the criminal justice system, constituting approximately 90% of the case resolutions[3]. The concept of plea bargaining stems from the principle “Nolo Contendere,” a Latin term that means “I do not wish to contest”[4]. The principle allows defendants to forgo a formal admission of guilt while still accepting a conviction. This idea is similar to plea bargaining. Plea bargaining has been acknowledged in various countries. In India, plea bargaining is a relatively recent concept. It was introduced in the year 2005[5] to protect the rights of the accused and to alleviate the backlog of criminal cases which have not commenced for many instances.
TYPES OF PLEA BARGAINING
Plea bargaining is not a monolithic process but encompasses various approaches. The following are the principal types of plea bargaining;
- Charge bargaining: Charge bargaining is the most common form of plea bargaining. In this type, the defendant agrees to plead guilty to a lesser charge than the one originally brought by the prosecution. This type of bargaining often results in a shorter sentence because the defendant pleads guilty to a less severe charge.[6]
- Sentence bargaining: In sentence bargaining, the defendant pleads guilty to the original charge but negotiates for a lighter sentence. This form of negotiation can be beneficial for both the defendant and the prosecution, as it provides certainty regarding the outcome without the unpredictability of the trial[7].
- Fact Bargaining: Fact bargaining involves an agreement on specific facts that will be admitted in court. This type is uncommon and can be more complex[8].
PLEA BARGAINING IN THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973.
Chapter XXIA, Section 265A-265L of Criminal Procedure Code[9] deal with plea bargaining, The important provisions; Section 265A-265F[10] are discussed below:
Section 265A: According to this Section, plea bargaining is only available for offences with a maximum punishment of fewer than seven years in prison, excluding the death penalty or life imprisonment, offences impacting the socio-economic condition of the nation, crimes against women and children under 14, and cases where a report under Section 173 of CrPC isn’t filed or a magistrate hasn’t taken cognizance.
Section 265B: According to this section, an accused person may apply for plea bargaining in the court where their trial is pending. The application must include a brief case description, the offence, and an affidavit stating it is filed voluntarily, understanding the punishment, and that the accused has no prior conviction for the same offence. Upon receiving the application, the court notifies the Public Prosecutor or complainant and the accused to appear on a specified date. The court then examined the accused confidentially to ensure the application was voluntary.
If satisfied, the court allows time for the parties to negotiate a mutually satisfactory resolution. If the court finds the application was involuntary or the accused has a prior conviction for the same offence, the trial will continue as per the Code from the application stage.
Section 265-C outlines the procedure for the court to follow in achieving a mutually satisfactory resolution. In cases initiated by a police report, the court must notify the relevant public prosecutor, the investigating officer, the victim, and the accused to attend a meeting to negotiate a satisfactory disposition. In complaint cases, the court is required to notify both the accused and the victim.
Section 265-D summarizes the process for preparing and submitting a report of a mutually satisfactory disposition.
- If a satisfactory resolution is reached in a meeting under Section 265-C, the court prepares a report signed by the presiding officer and all participants.
- If no resolution is achieved, the court records this and continues proceedings from the point where the application under Section 265-B(1) was filed.
Section 265E details the procedure for concluding cases with a mutually satisfactory resolution. After the completion of proceedings under Section 265-D, including the preparation of a report signed by the presiding officer and all parties, the court must address the sentencing phase. This involves hearing the parties regarding the appropriate punishment or the possibility of the accused being released on probation for good conduct or with a formal admonition. The court may:
- Release the accused on probation per Section 360 of the Code, the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, or any other applicable provisions, or
- Impose a sentence on the accused.
- In sentencing, the court may exercise discretion to impose the minimum punishment if such is prescribed by law for the offence. If no minimum punishment is specified, the court may impose a sentence of one-fourth of the maximum punishment provided for the offence.
Section 265-F mandates the court to pronounce judgment based on the mutually satisfactory disposition reached.
ADVANTAGES OF PLEA BARGAINING
Plea bargaining offers significant advantages, some of which are;
- Plea bargaining expedites the legal process by curtailing the number of cases that proceed to trial, thus mitigating the burden on courts.[11]
- In some cases, plea bargains involve compensating victims and providing them with restitution for their losses or damages[12].
- By resolving cases outside of trials, plea bargaining helps reduce case backlogs and ensures a more effective judicial system.
- Victims of crimes may find closure through plea bargains, as they see the defendant held accountable without the emotional strain of a trial.
- Plea bargains often result in cost savings for both defendants and the state, as they avoid the expenses associated with lengthy trials and court proceedings.
BRIEF CRITICAL APPRAISAL
Plea bargaining is a prevailing practice within the criminal justice system. This is advantageous in certain aspects, yet it raises several concerns about its broader implications on justice. One of the primary issues is that plea bargaining often results in offenders receiving more lenient sentences[13]. Critics are of the view that the leniency erodes the deterrent effect that criminal sanctions are supposed to have, inferring that offenders can sidestep the full consequences of their actions if they are willing to negotiate[14]. Moreover, the most disconcerting aspect of plea bargaining is the potential for innocent individuals to feel pressured into pleading guilty[15]. Despite legal requirements that a court must confirm an admission of guilt of the accused before accepting a plea, the fear of facing a much harsher sentence if convicted at trial can lead to wrongful admissions of guilt.[16] This coercive element brings to light an intrinsic flaw in the plea bargaining system, thereby calling into question the integrity of the justice process.
The practice of plea bargaining necessitates a delicate balance between the efficiency of the legal system and the fairness of criminal proceedings[17]. On the one hand, plea negotiations help alleviate the burden on courts, allowing for swifter resolutions of cases and reducing the costs associated with lengthy trials. On the other hand, the potential for unjust outcomes, particularly the risk of innocent people pleading guilty, highlights a critical issue within the system.
PLEA BARGAINING IN BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023
The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), enacted to improve efficiency and modify the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, received presidential assent on December 25, 2023[18]. It is scheduled to become effective on July 1, 2024[19]. The BNSS sustains the provision of plea bargaining, restricting it to sentence bargaining whereby an accused can secure a lighter sentence by pleading guilty. Moreover, the BNSS introduces a requirement for the accused to submit a plea bargaining application within 30 days from the date of framing of the charge. This timeframe may impact the efficacy of plea bargaining by limiting the opportunity to pursue a reduced sentence.[20]
The main differences between the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) related to plea bargaining are:
Scope of Plea Bargaining
- CrPC: The CrPC allows for plea bargaining, generally facilitating negotiations between the accused and the prosecution regarding the charge, sentence, or both.
- BNSS: The BNSS specifically limits plea bargaining to sentence bargaining, wherein an accused can seek a reduced sentence in exchange for pleading guilty.
Time limit
- CrPC: The CrPC does not specify a time limit for filing a plea bargaining application.
- BNSS: The BNSS requires the accused to file a plea bargaining application within 30 days from the date of framing of charges.
These differences highlight the more structured and restricted approach to plea bargaining under the BNSS compared to the broader provisions under the CrPC.
CONCLUSION
Plea bargaining is an essential legal tool that offers defendants the chance to negotiate with prosecutors for lighter charges or sentences by admitting the guilt. While the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) provides the framework for this practice, with the introduction of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), notable changes take effect. Now, plea bargaining is restricted to sentence bargaining, and there’s a strict 30-day deadline for filing applications. Although plea bargaining helps speed up trials, we can’t ignore the moral and procedural issues it spurs. We need to exercise diligent oversight on it and make constant improvements to make sure it’s both efficient and fair. That way, we can ensure that justice stays at the heart of our legal system.
Author(s) Name: Raheeq Assad (Central University of Kashmir)
References:
[1] Lawrence M Friedman, ‘Plea Bargaining in Historical Perspective’ (1979) 13(2) Law & Society Review 247 <http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3053251> accessed 26 June 2024.
[2] Casey N Tisdale and Ashley M Votruba, ‘Prosecutors’ considerations when initiating plea bargaining’ [2023] Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy <http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/asap.12374> accessed 26 June 2024.
[3] Lumina L, ‘An Analysis on the Efficiency of Alternative Dispute Resolution in Criminal Justice System with Emphasis on Plea Bargaining’ [2023] SSRN Electronic Journal <http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4566301> accessed 29 July 2024.
[4] Bhaswat Prakash, ‘Concept of Plea Bargaining under Indian Legal System’ [2023] SSRN Electronic Journal <http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4320066> accessed 26 June 2024.
[5] ‘India introduced plea bargaining in 2005’ (The times of India, 2 July 2007) <https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/india-introduced-plea-bargaining-in-2005/articleshow/2165682.cms>.
[6] George Beall, ‘Principles of Plea Bargaining’ (1977) 9(1) Loyola University Chicago Law Journal 175-192 <http://lawecommons.luc.edu/luclj/vol9/iss1/5> accessed 29 July 2024.
[7] KVK Santhy, ‘Plea Bargaining in Us And Indian Criminal Law confessions for Concessions’ (2013) 7(1) NALSAR Law Review 84-102 <https://nalsar.ac.in/images/NLR%202013_%20vol.7.pdf> accessed 26 June 2024.
[8] Jacqueline Hodgson, ‘Plea Bargaining: A Comparative Analysis,’ International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioural Sciences (Elsevier 2015) <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-08-097086-8.86091-2> accessed 29 July 2024.
[9] Criminal Procedure Code 1973 (CrPC 1973).
[10] CrPC 1973, ss 265A-265F.
[11] Carissa Byrne Hessick, Jeffrey Bellin and Elana Fogel, ‘Plea Bargains: Efficient or Unjust?’ (2023) 107(1) judicature <https://judicature.duke.edu/articles/plea-bargains-efficient-or-unjust/> accessed 26 June 2024.
[12] Pradeep Kumar Singh, ‘Plea Bargaining and Criminal Justice in India’ (2020) 7(1) ATHENS JOURNAL OF LAW 32, <http://dx.doi.org/10.30958/ajl.7-1-2> accessed 26 June 2024.
[13] Tina Wan, ‘The Unnecessary Evil of Plea Bargaining: An Unconstitutional Conditions Problem and a Not-So-Least Restrictive Alternative’’ (2007) 17(1) Review of Law and Social Justice <https://gould.usc.edu/students/journals/rlsj/issues/assets/docs/issue_17/07_Wan_Macro.pdf> accessed 26 June 2024.
[14] Travis Henderson, ‘The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly of Plea Bargaining’ (Law Journal for Social Justice, 22 March 2022) <https://lawjournalforsocialjustice.com/2022/03/22/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-of-plea-bargaining/> accessed 29 July 2024.
[15] Donald A. Dripps, ‘Guilt, Innocence, and Due Process of Plea Bargaining’ (2016) 57 William & Mary Law Review 1343-1393 <https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol57/iss4/8> accessed 29 July 2024.
[16] Lucian E Dervan and Vanessa Edkins, ‘The Innocent Defendant’s Dilemma: An Innovative Empirical Study of Plea Bargaining’s Innocence Problem’ [2012] SSRN Electronic Journal <http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2071397> accessed 29 July 2024.
[17] Seung-Hee Lee, ‘The scales of justice: balancing neutrality and efficiency in plea-bargaining encounters’ (2005) 16(1) Discourse & Society <http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0957926505048229> accessed 29 July 2024.
[18] The Hindu Bureau, ‘President Droupadi Murmu gives assent to the three Criminal Code bills’ (The Hindu, 25 December 2023) <www.thehindu.com/news/national/three-bills-to-replace-british-era-criminal-laws-get-presidents-assent/article67674266.ece>.
[19] taxmann, ‘Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to Come Into Force w.e.f. July 01, 2024’ (taxmann, 27 February 2024) <www.taxmann.com/post/blog/bharatiya-nagarik-suraksha-sanhita-to-come-into-force>.
[20] PRS Legislative Research, The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha (Second) Sanhita, 2023 <https://prsindia.org/billtrack/the-bharatiya-nagarik-suraksha-second-sanhita-2023>.
