Right To Fair Trial Of Accused Affected If Plea Of Guilt Remains After Alteration Of Charges: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has made it clear that if an accused pleads guilty to a particular offence, the plea of guilt cannot extend to new offences invoked upon alteration of charge.A single judge bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that in this case the Petitioner, involved in a motor accident, had pleaded guilty to the offences under sections 279 and 338 IPC and not under section...
The Kerala High Court has made it clear that if an accused pleads guilty to a particular offence, the plea of guilt cannot extend to new offences invoked upon alteration of charge.
A single judge bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that in this case the Petitioner, involved in a motor accident, had pleaded guilty to the offences under sections 279 and 338 IPC and not under section 304A IPC. However, if the plea of guilt remains, the petitioner's defence could be prejudiced since the charge had been altered to section 304A IPC.
“The plea of guilt and the consequent conviction is not an empty formality, and the procedure has to be strictly followed...In the instant case, it is evident that the plea of guilt made by the accused was not for the offence under section 304A IPC. When the accused pleaded guilty, the offence was only under sections 279 and 338 IPC. The situation would have been different had the accused been informed that the offence included section 304A IPC as well.”
Petitioner had sought to set aside a conviction of a lower court under Sections 279 and 338 of the IPC, arguing that he was asked by the police to plead guilty without realizing the implication as he does not speak or understand Malayalam.
After the conviction, the petitioner was issued with a summons informing him that the offence under Sections 279 and 338 of the IPC had been altered to Section 304A due to the injured party in the accident succumbing to his injuries.
The bench referred to the decision in Raseen Babu v. State of Kerala, in which the court had provided a set of guidelines to be complied with before the court could act upon a plea of guilt.
As such, the court remarked that the plea of guilt for the offences under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC “cannot be said to be voluntary”. The bench added that “If the plea of guilt made at a time when the offence charged was only under sections 279 and 338 IPC is allowed to remain, despite the charge being altered, petitioner's rights to a fair trial may get affected” pointing out that “such a procedure will be unjust and unfair.”
The court set aside the convictions and stated that the petitioner is entitled to contest the matter on merits without referring to the previous plea of guilt.
Counsel for Petitioners: Advocates Jinu Joseph, N Raghunath, PK Mohamed Jameel, Anu Philipose, Mathew KS and KP Bhagyesh
Counsel for Respondents: Advocate Sreeja V, Public Prosecutor
Case Title: Bichitra Mohanty v. State of Kerala
Case Number: Crl. MC No. 6900 of 2023
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 99