Accused Can't Plead Guilty To Get Lesser Sentence, Court's Should Not Give Concessions Or Adopt Liberal Approach Due To Guilty Plea: Kerala High Court

Justice P Somarajan set aside the Trial Court's order by which a sentence of fine was imposed upon the accused. The Court remanded the matter back to the Trial Court for fresh consideration of the matter for ordering a substantive sentence.

“The right to plead guilty shall not be used as a device to get a lesser sentence. In the case of pleading guilty by the accused, the court should not adopt a liberal approach and no concession can be given simply on the reason that the accused pleaded guilty in the matter of awarding sentence. On the other hand, the sentence should reflect a proper balance.”

The complainant is the revision petitioner who has approached the High Court aggrieved by the order of the Magistrate Court to impose only a lesser sentence of fine upon the accused. The accused had committed offences under Sections 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous means or weapons), 341(punishment for wrongful restraint) and 506(i) IPC (punishment for criminal intimidation). The Magistrate awarded a lesser sentence of fine only because the accused pleaded guilty before the Court.

The Court noted that the accused caused injury to the head of the complainant and remained absconding for a long time. It also observed that the imposition of sentence upon the accused should bring a fair balance based on the nature of the offence committed and the severity of injury sustained by the victim. “The trial court ought to have ordered substantive sentence to the extent which would reflect a proper balance with the gravity of the injury sustained”, stated the Court.

The Court held that the accused cannot be imposed with a minimum sentence only because he appeared through his counsel and pleaded guilty before the Court. It added, “The sentence must reflect the injuries sustained by the victim with the necessary attending circumstances”.

Accordingly, the Court set aside the order of the Magistrate and remanded the matter back to the Trial Court to order a proper sentence. It also permitted the accused to withdraw the pleading of guilty and appear for trial, if he wished.

Counsel for Revision Petitioner: Advocates Manas P Hameed, Mohamed Rafeeq Kayalmadathil

Counsel for Respondents: Advocate P T Sheejish, Public Prosecutor Sangeetharaj N R

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 284

Case Title: Chekkutty v State of Kerala

Case Number: Crl.Rev.Pet No. 238 OF 2023

Click here to read/download the Order