EVALUATING THE STATUS AND IMPACT OF PLEA BARGAINING IN INDIA BY - MOKSHITA SINGH
AUTHORED BY - MOKSHITA SINGH
Advocate, High Court of Delhi
ABSTRACT
The concept of Plea
Bargaining originated in the United States with the aim of reducing caseload.
It has become a significant feature of the American Criminal Justice system
over the years and majority of criminal cases in the US are now being settled
by plea bargain. The success of Plea Bargaining in the US had attracted Indian
scholars and legislators to introduce this concept in India too. While Law
Commission of India was continuously recommending introduction of plea
bargaining, the Supreme Court of India was not in favour of this practice in
the circumstances prevailing in India.
Plea Bargaining was finally
incorporated into the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, CrPC) as
Chapter XXI-A through the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2005 after much debate
on the issue. These provisions have been retained in The Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
The article will discuss the
introduction and scope of the concept of Plea Bargaining and its consequences
on affected parties in India. It will also look into the difference between
this concept in India and the US. Until plea bargaining was codified, the
Courts were exercising their own discretion in this matter. The article will
thus explore the attitude of the Indian judiciary, through various case laws,
towards plea-bargaining post 2005 amendment to CrPC. It aims to know whether
the functioning of plea bargaining in India is in conformity with its desired
objective of bringing down the pendency of cases or not.
INTRODUCTION
Plea Bargaining, as defined in the Black's Law Dictionary, is "a
negotiated agreement between a prosecutor and a criminal defendant whereby the
defendant pleads guilty to a lesser offence or to one of multiple charges in
exchange for some concession by the prosecutor”[1]. It
implies, plea bargaining involves an active negotiation process whereby an
offender is allowed to confess his guilt in court, if he so desires, in
exchange for a lighter punishment than would have been given to him for committing
the offence. In many cases, the prosecution will
also expect the accused to do something else in exchange for such concessions,
such as testifying as a witness in another criminal trial.[2]
The concept of Plea Bargaining originated in the United States with the
aim of reducing caseload. The adversarial system which is complex in character
made the conviction in the criminal cases an uphill task, thus resulting in
unwarranted delays. The
phenomena known as plea bargaining arose as a result of an inadequate judicial
system and lengthy criminal proceedings. Plea bargaining not only provided
relief to the accused who had been imprisoned for years due to trial delays,
but it also proven to be a time and cost effective solution for the court
system to expedite the resolution of criminal cases. It has become a significant feature of the American Criminal Justice
system over the years and majority of criminal cases in the US are now being
settled by plea bargain. Almost all of the criminal Courts, especially in
India, are over burdened and hence unable to dispose of the cases on merits
without undue delay. Criminal trials usually take years to come to an end while
plea bargaining significantly reduces the period of trial and leads to quick
disposal of cases. The success of Plea Bargaining in the US had attracted
Indian scholars and legislators to introduce this concept in India too. By
amending the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and introducing Sections 265A to
265L to the code, through the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2005, the concept
of plea bargaining was finally incorporated into the Indian legal system with
an objective of addressing the problem of huge backlog of pending criminal
cases in the Indian courts and to refuse the sufferings of under-trial
prisoners.[3]
This paper will discuss the introduction and scope of the concept of Plea
Bargaining and its consequences on affected parties in India. It will also look
into the difference between this concept in India and the US. The paper will
explore how often plea bargaining is used in the Indian legal system and what
has been the outlook of Courts towards plea-bargaining post 2005 amendment to the
CrPC. It aims to know whether the law of Plea Bargaining can have any adverse
effects in the Indian legal set up and whether the functioning of plea
bargaining in India is in conformity with its desired objective of bringing
down the pendency of cases or not.
HISTORICAL
BACKGROUND OF PLEA BARGAINING
The United
States is a pioneer in the implementation of plea bargaining into its judicial
system, and it covers a wide range of crimes.[4] This results in resolving over 90% of the cases through this effective
and efficient legal tool.[5] It has emerged as one of the most popular procedures in the criminal
justice system of U.S.A. The
criminal trial in the United States is a complex exercise that includes
extended voir dire and peremptory challenges during jury selection, numerous
evidentiary objections, complex jury instructions, motions for exclusion, and
so on. Despite providing the defendant with every opportunity to contest the
charges against him, it has become the most expensive and time-consuming in the
world. Plea bargaining became the most popular method for avoiding this
difficult process. Interestingly, in individual states or at the federal level,
nearly anything goes when it comes to plea bargaining. In the United States, plea bargaining is not limited to certain kind of
offences, thus allowing it in case of smallest of offences to offences of the
most serious nature, including those cases in which death penalty can be
awarded as a punishment.
The rise of plea bargaining is generally said to begin in the
19th century but it actually dates back hundreds of years to the
advent of confession law and has probably existed for more than eight centuries.[6] The initial
surge of plea bargaining cases at the appellate level in the United States
happened immediately after the Civil War. Relying on
past confession precedent prohibiting the offering of incentives in return for
admissions of guilt, various courts summarily rejected these bargains and
permitted the defendants to withdraw their statements.[7] These early
American appellate decisions, however, could not prevent plea bargaining from
reaching the American courts. Plea bargaining was kept alive
during the late 19th and early 20th centuries by
corruption, over-criminalization necessitated emergence of plea bargaining into
mainstream criminal procedure and its rise to dominance.[8] Between 1908 and 1916, the number of federal convictions in the US
resulting from pleas of guilty rose from 50% to 72%.[9] Though plea-bargaining rates rose significantly in the early 20th
century, appellate courts were still reluctant to allow such deals when
appealed.[10] In Brady v. United States[11], the first American case in this regard, the American Supreme Court
accepted the constitutionality of plea bargaining. The US Supreme Court held that
merely because the agreement was entered into out of fear that the trial may
result in a death sentence, would not illegitimise a bargained plea of guilty.[12] The Court has approved practices such as plea bargaining when properly
conducted and controlled. One year later, in Santobello v. New York[13], the
United States Supreme Court publicly recognized that plea bargaining was
necessary for the administration of justice and, when properly administered,
should be encouraged.
Federal Sentencing Guidelines create various levels of
reduction in offences in case the defendant agrees to accept the responsibility
of his actions thereby easing the burden of proving the case on the
prosecution.[14] Rule 11 of
the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure establishes the legislative foundation
for the administration of plea bargaining in America. We come across various academic writings which appreciate its utility
and also its wide use.
CHARACTERISTICS
OF PLEA BARGAINING IN THE US
In a criminal trial in the US, the accused has three options for pleas:
guilty, not guilty, and nolo contendere.[15] In U.S., in some jurisdictions the plea of
“Nolo Contendere” or ‘no contest’ is not an ‘admission of guilt’, but rather a
‘willingness to accept declaration of guilt’, rather than to go trial.[16] It is treated as a guilty plea for
one purpose only, as opposed to a guilty plea in a subsequent civil suit
originating from the same event. The guilty plea is admissible as evidence
against the defendant, but the nolo contendere plea is not. A judgment of
conviction entered on a plea of Nolo Contendere may be used by the accused as
the basis for a plea of double jeopardy because conviction and punishment after
the nolo plea are as complete as a formal conviction or acquittal following a
guilty or not guilty plea.
In general, a guilty plea must be voluntarily
made and should be intelligent.[17] This means a defendant should understand
what he is doing in agreeing to a plea bargain and that he is giving up his
right to a trial. Also, he has to agree to accept the plea deal. Acceptance
should not be based on physical coercion or prosecutors making a settlement and
then modifying the terms after the defendant consented and pleaded guilty.[18] For all practical purposes,
there are no rules governing how pleas are negotiated. Prosecutors and defence
attorneys are required to follow an ethical code of conduct but these codes
tend to be broadly worded and do not address plea bargaining directly. As a result, US prosecutors have broad discretion and power in the plea
bargaining process, and can agree to dismiss a case completely, dismiss
charges, allow an alternative penalty, such as a fine or community service, or
negotiate a settlement that includes a significant amount of prison time[19].
TYPES OF
PLEA BARGAINING
Plea bargaining, as practiced in different
criminal justice systems, is of four types[20] as mentioned below:
·
Charge bargaining is common and widely known form of plea
bargaining. The charges or offenses that the defendants will be
charged with at trial are negotiated. Usually, in return for a plea of ‘guilty’ to a lesser charge, a
prosecutor will dismiss the higher or other charges counts. For example, a
defendant charged with burglary may be offered the opportunity to plead guilty
to attempt burglary. As a result, it is essentially a reciprocal exchange
of concessions.
·
Sentence Bargaining involves the agreement to a plea of guilty for
the stated charge rather than a reduced charge in return for a lighter
sentence. It emphasizes to the prosecution the importance of going
through trial and proving its case. It gives the defendant the possibility to
receive a lesser punishment. It is the
process which is introduced in India where the accused with the consent of the
prosecutor and complainant or victim would bargain for a lesser sentence than
prescribed for the offence.
·
Facts Bargaining is the least utilized type of bargaining in which
certain facts are admitted, eliminating the need for the prosecutor to prove
them, in exchange for an agreement not to put certain other facts into
evidence.
·
Counts Bargaining, on the other hand, requires the defendant to
plead guilty to a subset of multiple original charges.
REASONS FOR
INTRODUCTION OF PLEA BARGAINING IN INDIA
The fact that court’s resources would have to be
significantly increased to provide a trial for every charge against the accused
has been cited as both justification and reason for the huge popularity of
plea-bargaining in the US.[21] Proponents of plea-bargaining argued that it would remove the risks and
uncertainties involved in a trial, thus introducing flexibility into a rigid,
often erratic system of justice and would enable the court to avoid dealing
with cases that involve no real dispute and try only those where there is a
real basis for dispute.[22] This would save the court’s time.[23]
The Law Commission of India advocated the
introduction of ‘Plea Bargaining’ in its 142nd, 154th and 177th reports. The Law
Commission in its 142nd Report looked into this concept in detail
and its successful practice in the US. It came out with the view that the basic
reason for introducing this concept in India is to reduce the caseload of
Indian courts as they are burdened with a huge backlog of cases which have been
pending for many years. As the criminal trials do not commence for as
long a period as three to four years after the accused is sent to judicial
custody. In the meantime, the accused languish in jails. The report stated that
the conditions prevailing in the jails are appalling and the accused are
obliged to live in sub-human conditions mixed up with hard-core criminals. In certain circumstances, the accused's time in jail prior to the start
of trials exceeds the maximum punishment that can be imposed on them even if
they are proven guilty of the charges against them. Thus, magnitude of
the problem of delays in criminal cases was the major issue which was looked
upon by the Commission. The Commission found that at that time the
Supreme Court was dealing with Criminal Appeals relating to the year 1979. This
enormous delay was the matter of cognizance taken by the Commission. Infact,
the Apex Court in Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar[24] dealt with this matter and noticed
that an alarmingly large number of men, women are behind prison bars or years
awaiting trails in courts of law. It was observed by the Supreme Court that-
"The
offences with which some of them are charged are trivial, which, even proved,
would not warrant punishment for more than a few months, perhaps for a year or
two, and yet these unfortunate forgotten specimen of humanity are in jail
deprived of their freedom for periods ranging from three to ten years without
even as much as their trial having commenced".
The Commission took notice of it and
recommended introduction of Plea Bargaining.[25] The 142nd Report of the Law Commission of
India, 1991, aimed at making the Indian criminal justice system just,
efficient, speedy and cost efficient. In order to deal with the long delays in
the disposal of criminal cases, it suggested that a version of the concept of
plea bargaining, suitable to the Indian legal scenario, should be considered
with seriousness and with a sense of urgency.
The 154th Report of the Law Commission, 1996, referred to the 142nd
Report of the Law Commission and also recommended 'plea bargaining' as an
alternative method to deal with the huge backlog of criminal cases. It recommended the
incorporation of chapter XXIA in the Criminal Procedure Code which was later
done through the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2005. The Report recommended
that the said concept be made applicable as an experimental measure in case of
offences which are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years and/or
fine including the offences covered by section 320 of the Code. It was also
recommended that plea-bargaining should be used on case-to-case basis keeping
in view the nature and gravity of the offences and the quantum of punishment.
It was observed that the said facility should not be available to habitual
offenders and to those who are accused of socio-economic offences of a grave
nature and those accused of offences against women and children.
The recommendations of the 154th Law Commission Report were
supported and reiterated by the Law Commission in its 177th Report.
Further, the Report of the Committee on the reform of criminal justice system,
2000 under the Chairmanship of Justice (Dr) Malimath, supported the recommendations
of the Law Commission and stated that the experience of United States was an
evidence of plea bargaining being a means for the disposal of accumulated cases
and expediting the delivery of criminal justice.[26] Based on the
recommendations of the Law Commission on this issue, the new chapter on plea
bargaining was finally incorporated into the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
as Chapter XXI-A through the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2005 and it came
into effect on 5th July, 2006.
The process of Plea bargaining comes with various advantages such as reducing
the delay in disposal of cases, backlogs of cases and saving the courts time.[27] It also puts an end to the uncertainty of a criminal case from the point
of view of giving relief to victims and witnesses of crime and saving a lot of
time, cost of litigation and energy of the accused and the state. It can help
in reducing the congestion in prisons. It can help in raising the number of
convictions from its present low to a fair level to create some sort of
credibility to the system. The victims of crimes might be benefited as they
could get the compensation upon agreement with the accused and will be relieved
of extended trial, i.e, appeals consuming unending time.
STATUS AND SCOPE OF PLEA BARGAINING IN INDIA
Indian Judiciary’s Stance on Plea
Bargaining Before 2005 Amendment to the CrPC
While Law Commission of India was continuously recommending introduction
of plea bargaining, the Supreme Court of India was not in favour of this
practice and were reluctant to adopt this method in criminal cases in the
circumstances prevailing in India. Madanlal Ramchandra Daga vs. State of
Maharashtra[28] is a classic example of the conventional thinking of the court in which
Justice M. Hidayatullah held that the case should be decided according to the
guilt of the convicted. In this case, the accused were being tried for selling adulterated
food under Prevention of food adulteration act, 1954. The Court had the impression that the
accused pleaded guilty before the Magistrate Court in line with an informal
tripartite arrangement similar to the plea bargaining process utilized in the
United States. Justice Krishna Iyer showed his concern about the subject of
agreement and simply stated that the system of plea bargaining is not permitted
under Indian criminal law.
In Kasambhai Abdulrehmanbhai Sheikh etc. v. State of Gujarat[29], the Supreme Court observed that
conviction based on the plea of guilty entered by the appellant as a result of
plea bargaining cannot be sustained. In this case, the accused was convicted
under S 16(1)(a)(i) read with section 7 of the Prevention of Food adulteration
Act, 1954 by the Magistrate on the basis of plea bargaining which took place
between the prosecution, the defence and the learned Magistrate and the accused
was let-off with a nominal sentence of imprisonment and a small fine. The Supreme Court stated that it is
against public policy to record a conviction against an accused by encouraging
him to confess to a plea of guilty with the promise that if he enters a plea of
guilty, he will be let off lightly. Such a procedure would be clearly
unreasonable, unfair and unjust amounting to violation of Article 21 as
interpreted in Maneka Gandhi’s case.[30] The Court stated that it would pollute the pure fount of justice, because it might induce an
innocent accused to plead guilty to suffer a light and inconsequential punishment
rather than go through a long and arduous criminal trial adulteration statute.[31] Thus the conviction of an accused based on a plea of guilty entered by
him as a result of plea bargaining with the prosecution and the Magistrate was
held to be unconstitutional and
illegal.
The Supreme Court, in the case of Kachhia
Patel Shantilal Koderlal v. State of Gujarat[32], also held ‘plea bargaining’ to be unconstitutional and illegal, with the potential to
encourage corruption, collusion, and poison the pure fount of justice. In Thippaswamy V. State of Karnataka[33], the Supreme Court observed that it would be violative of Art. 21 of the
Constitution to induce or lead an accused to plead guilty under a promise or
assurance that he would be let off lightly and then in appeal or revision, to
enhance the sentence. It stated that in such cases, the Court of appeal or
revision should set aside the conviction and sentence of the accused and send
back the case to the trial court so that the accused can, if he wishes, defend
himself against the charges and if found guilty, proper sentence should be
passed against him.
The stance of Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Chandrika[34] is the culmination of its views on this issue. In State of Uttar Pradesh v.
Chandrika[35], the court discussed the constitutionality of Plea Bargaining in light
of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and observed that the concept of
plea bargaining is not recognized and is against public policy under our
criminal justice system. It further stated that Section 320 of the CrPC
provides for compounding of certain offences with the permission of the Court
and certain others even without permission of the Court. Except as stated above, the concept
of negotiated settlement in criminal cases is not permitted, and this way of
short-circuiting the hearing should not be encouraged. The Supreme Court held that it is
settled law that on the basis of plea bargaining court cannot dispose of the
criminal cases and that the court has to decide it on merits. Neither the State
nor the public prosecutor nor even the Judge can bargain that evidence would
not be led or appreciated in consideration of getting a lower sentence by
pleading guilty. If the accused confesses its guilt, appropriate sentence is
required to be implemented. The court further held that mere acceptance or
admission of the guilt should not be a ground for reduction of sentence. Similar
observations were made by the Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Nasruddin[36], where plea bargaining in a case under section 304 I.P.C., for a reduced
sentence, was held to not be permissible under the law.
Process of
Plea Bargaining under the Code of Criminal Procedure
Section 4 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2005,
introduced Chapter XXIA containing Section 265A to 265L to the Code of Criminal
Procedure which came into effect on 5th July, 2006. A review of Chapter XXI-A, which
deals with plea bargaining, reveals that certain procedures outlined in
Sections 265-A to 265-L of the CrPC must be followed in order for it to be
legal.
Section 265 A makes the provisions of Chapter XXIA applicable
only to those offences for which the punishment of imprisonment does not
exceed seven years.[37] Furthermore, it does not apply in circumstances where the offence is
socioeconomic in nature or is perpetrated against a woman or a child under the
age of fourteen.[38] Subsection 2 enables the
Central Government to determine the violations under the legislation that are
currently in force, which will be those that have an impact on the country's
socioeconomic position.
The
application of plea bargaining is to be voluntarily filed by accused in
the court in which such offence is pending for trial.[39] The application
has to contain a brief description of the case relating to which the
application is filed including the offence to which the case relates and is to
be accompanied by an affidavit sworn by the accused stating therein that he has
voluntarily preferred, after understanding the nature and extent of punishment
provided under the law for the offence, the plea bargaining in his case and
that he has not previously been convicted by a Court in a case in which he had
been charged with the same offence. The judge is not a passive observer; rather, he or she
plays an important role in the proceedings. The court is responsible for
ensuring the entire process is carried out with the accused's complete and
voluntary participation. It is mandatory on the part of the
judge to examine the accused alone in camera and to satisfy itself that the
accused has filed the application voluntarily.[40].
Thereafter, the Court issues notice to the Public Prosecutor or the
complainant of the case, as the case may be, and to the accused to appear on
the date fixed for the case. The accused and prosecutor are given
time so that they can work out a mutual disposition of the case which may
involve providing compensation to the victim and other
legal expenses.[41]
After this procedure, if there is a satisfactory disposition of case,
court shall dispose the case by sentencing accused to one fourth of
the punishment provided for that particular offence.[42] The law also requires
that the verdict be pronounced in open court. In case the court is not satisfied that the application is voluntary or
the accused has previously been convicted by a court for the same offence, it
shall proceed further from the stage when such application for plea bargaining
was filed. The most important point reflected in statute
here is that statements or facts stated by accused in an
application for plea bargaining shall not be used for any other
purpose.[43]
It is the duty of the court to ensure, throughout
the process, that it is completed voluntarily by the parties participating in
the meeting. The court has the authority to give compensation to the victim in
accordance with the mutually decision reached by the parties. The court is also empowered to release the accused on
probation of good conduct or after admonition under section 360 or for dealing
with the accused under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.[44] S.265I provides for the application of S. 428 for setting
off the period of detention undergone by the accused against the sentence of
imprisonment imposed under Chapter XXI-A in the same manner as they apply in
respect of the imprisonment under other provisions of the Code. The judgment
delivered by the court in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XXIA of the
Cr.P.C. is final and no appeal lies against such judgment. However, such verdicts
can be challenged before the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution through a Writ Petition, and before the Supreme Court under
Article 136 by a Special Leave Petition.[45]
These
provisions have been retained in The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Additionally, Section 290 of the Act includes a stipulation that the accused
must submit a plea bargain application within 30 days of the charge being
framed. This deadline could further hinder the effectiveness of plea bargaining
by restricting the time available to pursue a reduced sentence.
Comparison Of Plea Bargaining Models Of India
And US
Conceptually, the Indian model is very different from that of USA. Plea bargaining is not widely
acknowledged as a fundamental component of the Indian judicial system, and its
application is quite limited in India. The American
Model has existed for last 100 years or so but has particularly become deeply
entrenched in the country’s legal system since 1970. A comparison between the
American and Indian models is given below:
1. In India, plea bargaining is
available for the offences with provision of up to 7 years imprisonment. The American model allows pleas for
any crime, even homicide, and does not limit them to particular offenses.
2. Generally the plea in India is
available for the offences for which the term of imprisonment does not exceed
seven years, but in case where the victim is a woman or a child below the age
of 14 years the plea is not available. Plea bargaining is not hampered by such riders under
the American approach.
3. The
additional restrictions included in the Indian model are that minor criminals,
repeat offenders, and those who have committed socioeconomic offences are not
eligible for the plea. The American model considers every scenario without
including any of the riders found in the Indian model.
4. In the procedural comparison between
the two models, the Indian model directs the accused to apply for the plea unlike
in the American model where the prosecutor and the accused make the application
after the negotiations between them are over. [46] The office of Prosecution commands immense relevance in America so it is
directly allowed to negotiate an agreement with the accused. After the agreement has been
negotiated, the court's permission is requested. On the other hand, the
judicial officer is in charge of managing plea negotiations in India. Further it is a business-like approach which guides negotiations in
America thereby mandating the prosecutor to share all relevant information
concerning the case with the accused.[47] This is
significant because it makes equal negotiating easier. Additionally, the
American prosecutor requests that the accused enter a guilty plea to any or all
of the accusations that have been brought against him. In light of this, he
would advise the judge to drop the charges or impose a light or brief sentence.
However, such charge negotiating is prohibited in India. The accused cannot
negotiate a reduction in charges, even if he enters a guilty plea. Regardless
of his plea, the judge must impose the sentence in accordance with the laws
established by the legislation.
5. In
contrast to the American model, where victims have little control over the terms
of the plea agreements, the Indian model of plea bargaining implies from its
rules that the victim has the authority to veto the agreement made.
When the two models are compared, it becomes clear that the American model of plea bargaining is comprehensive, whereas the Indian model is more limited and only applies to particular situations.[48]
When the two models are compared, it becomes clear that the American model of plea bargaining is comprehensive, whereas the Indian model is more limited and only applies to particular situations.[48]
When the two models are compared, it
becomes clear that the American model of plea bargaining is comprehensive,
whereas the Indian model is more limited and only applies to particular
situations.
While there were many supports of this concept in India, it had its share
criticism too. This process of plea bargaining was feared to make the system
too soft for the accused and allow them unfair means of escape in a dishonesty
ridden society in India. This can give the accused a feeling that they can
escape by making the right offer. Also, it is unfair to treat two convicts who
have committed the same crimes differently, one more harshly because he stands
on his constitutional right.[49]
This process might result in increase in number of innocent convicts in
prison. Innocent accused may be paid by the actual perpetrators of crime in
return to their guilty plea with assured reduction in penalty. Thus illegal
plea bargaining between real culprits and apparent accused might get legalized
with rich criminals corrupting police officials ending up in mockery of justice
system.[50] Element of coercion also cannot be ruled out as many of those who are
accused in criminal cases are people belonging to lower sections of the society
with not enough awareness and knowledge of their rights. Once the plea comes
forward and is recorded on the file, further trial will be come to a halt. The
court will not adhere to the requirement of proof of beyond reasonable doubt
and this will lead to conviction of the innocent person.
Attitude of
Judiciary towards Plea Bargaining Post 2005 Amendment
There aren't many reliable studies
that examine how the program is implemented in different criminal courts across
the nation. We lack studies studying the
experience of different stakeholders in dealing with this procedure. We get
data only regarding the pendency of plea bargaining applications in case it
gets listed in the websites of some district courts.
Even though plea bargaining petitions
are frequently submitted and scheduled for hearing, much more has to be done to
increase the procedure's popularity. There is no question that it can
significantly lessen the issue of pendency in Indian criminal courts if it is
utilized more frequently. In 2007 The Times of India had
reported one of the first cases of plea bargaining in India. A Reserve Bank of
India clerk, charged with corruption charges, had applied for plea bargaining
to reduce his sentence. As it was a corruption charge the court refused to
entertain its application.[51]
In the case of Jeetu @ Jitendera v. State of Chhattisgarh[52], an appeal by
special leave was made towards to the Apex Court against the order of the High
Court of Chattisgarh which had reduced the sentence of a person convicted under
Sections 147 and 327 of the Indian Penal Code from three years rigorous
imprisonment on the second score to one year and maintained the sentence of
rigorous imprisonment for three months in respect of the offence on the first
score i.e. Section 147. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of conviction and
order of sentence, the accused-Appellant filed a special leave petition before
the Supreme Court. Before the High Court, the Counsel for the Appellants did
not argue as far as the conviction aspect is concerned and confined the
submissions as regards the imposition of sentence highlighting certain
mitigating circumstances. The Supreme Court in this case referred to the case
of Thippaswamy v. State of Karnataka[53] in which
it was decided that the court could not decide criminal cases based on plea
bargaining. The Court must make a merit-based decision. An appropriate sentence
must be administered if the accused admits his guilt. Furthermore, the court's
strategy in appeals or revisions should be to determine the accused's guilt
based on the facts presented, and if he is found guilty, a suitable penalty
must be imposed or upheld.
Before issuing the final ruling that
the aforementioned concession is supported by the evidence on file, the court's
conscience must also be satisfied if the appellant or his attorney argues that
he is not contesting the conviction order because there is enough evidence
linking the accused to the crime. A sentence reduction should not be based only
on an admission or acceptance of guilt. Additionally, the accused cannot
negotiate a lesser sentence with the court by entering a guilty plea. Referring
to the aforementioned ruling, the Court determined that it must decide the
appeal on its merits rather than accept the concession and proceed with the
punishment since doing so would undermine the core goal of the justice delivery
system. Further, it was stated that in many
cases the High Courts, after recording the non-challenge to the conviction,
have proceeded to dwell upon the proportionality of the quantum of sentence.
This is impermissible in law and should not be taken resort to.
While commenting on the concept of plea bargaining, the Gujarat
High Court observed in the State of Gujarat v. Natwar
Harchanji Thakor[54], that the very object of the law is to provide easy, cheap and
expeditious justice by resolution of disputes, including the trial of criminal
cases and given
the current realistic profile of the pendency and delay in the administration
of law and justice, substantial reforms are unavoidable. It can thus be said that plea bargaining is really a measure of
redressal and it shall add a new dimension in the realm of judicial reforms.
In Pardeep Gupta v. State[55], the trial
court rejected the application of plea bargain on
the ground that since the applicant is involved in an offence under section
120-B Indian Penal Code and the role of applicant was not lesser than the other
co-accused. However,
none of the charges against the petitioner resulted in a sentence of more than
seven years. On appeal it was held that the
request of plea bargaining is ought to be considered taking into account the
role of the accused, and the nature of the offence, etc. The trial court's stance indicates
that it did not even read the provisions
of chapter XXI-A before considering the application. The High Court thus directed
the trial court to reconsider the application of plea bargaining made by the accused
in the light of provisions made in the Code of Criminal Procedure and not in a
casual manner.
In Vijay Moses Das v. Central Bureau of
Investigation[56], the court set aside the order of the trial court whereby the court has
rejected the application of plea-bargaining by the accused. The offences
alleged to have been committed by the accused are punishable under Section 420,
468 and 471 read with Section 468 of IPC. All the three offences are punishable
with maximum imprisonment for a period of seven years. The Magistrate rejected
the application on two grounds, namely (i) the petitioner has not filed
affidavit that he is not a previous convict and, (ii) that compensation has not
been fixed. It is pertinent to mention here that these objections were not
raised by the prosecution. The Uttarakhand High Court observed that the trial court
has erred in law in rejecting the application of the petitioners for 'plea
bargaining’. It looked at Section 265B of Cr.P.C. which provides that an
application for 'plea bargaining' can be moved either by the accused or by the
prosecutor. It was further held that the Magistrate should have disposed of the
case after accepting the 'plea bargaining’, and that no useful purpose would be
served by sending the accused, who is a sixty years old heart patient, to jail
by rejecting the application for plea bargaining. Therefore, the trial court
was directed to dispose of the case by accepting the plea bargaining sought by
the accused.
A magistrate's court, in Mumbai, on 25th may, 2011, accepted
a plea bargain application and convicted four foreign nationals who were
accused of stealing diamonds worth Rs 6.6 crore at an international jewellery
show 2010, to 21 months rigorous imprisonment. The maximum punishment in such
cases is usually seven years. The
foreigners, three Mexicans and one Venezuelan, were convicted by the 37th
Esplanade court after pleading guilty to their crimes and seeking a plea deal
under the Criminal Procedure Code.
After looking at the above mentioned cases it can be seen
that, over the years, courts have started accepting plea bargaining as an
effective way of speedy disposal of cases. The judicial thinking underwent a
great change after the concept of plea bargaining was introduced in criminal
law by Criminal Laws Amendment Act, 2005.[57] The courts are willing to accept application of plea bargaining provided
that it fulfills all the requirements mentioned under Chapter XXI-A of CrPC.
WHETHER PLEA BARGAINING HAS BEEN A
SUCCESS
IN INDIA OR NOT?
Until
2015, no data was being collected on how the process was being used or the
number of cases being resolved through plea-bargaining.[58] The National Crime Records
Bureau began collecting data from 2015 onwards. In its report for Crimes in
India in 2014 it was shown that plea bargaining had been used for 34,931 cases
under the Penal Code.[59] A lot of these cases were
ones for which plea bargaining was prohibited as it
was used to dispose of 3,584 cases of crimes against women even though plea bargaining is not applicable for
offences committed against women and children. These included about
2,200 cases of cruelty by husband and his relatives, as well as 1,045 cases of
assault with the purpose to outrage women's modesty. According to the NCRB,
courts disposed of 27 cases of murder, 55 of attempt to murder, 40 of rape and
27 of robbery after plea bargaining pacts between parties in violation of law
passed by Parliament in 2005 and shows widespread abuse of the law.[60] Data released in 2015 excluded the cases for which plea bargaining
was prohibited and thus presented a steep decline.
Out of 10,502,256 cases under IPC disposed by the courts in 2015, plea
bargaining took place in only 4,816 cases, i.e., a mere 0.045%.[61] Data for 2016 shows
further decline to 0.043% (an absolute increase to 4,887 cases but a relative
decrease due to further increase in the number of total cases).[62] In this time, case
pendency has continued to proceed on an upward curve, though not as rapidly as
the time between 1970s-1990s.[63] According to the recent
National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data for 2022, just 19,135 of the
1,70,52,367 cases tried in Indian courts were resolved by plea bargaining. This
represents only 0.11% of all cases. Thus, it is clear that, even though there
has been slight improvement, plea bargaining has failed to fulfill the main policy
objective it was intended to achieve in India, i.e., reduction in burden of
cases pending before the Courts.
REASONS FOR FAILURE OF PLEA BARGAINING IN THE INDIAN
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
One of the major reasons for failure of the
process of plea bargaining in achieving its desired objectives is seen to be
the scope of Chapter XXI-A of the CrPC. The addition of this Chapter containing
provisions regarding plea bargaining was a step in the right direction by the
legislature in tackling the problem of backlogging of cases and ensuring
speedier disposal of cases. Chapter XXI-A contains various provisions which are
in tune with objective of introducing the concept of plea bargaining. However
the scope of its application has been brought down to a large extent. This goes
against the very purpose of the introduction of the concept of plea bargaining.
The provisions of chapter XXI-A of CrPC are
not applicable to offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life or of
imprisonment for a term exceeding seven years. Further offences against women
and children below fourteen years and offences affecting the social economic
condition of the nation are kept out of the ambit of Chapter XXI-A. This
provision further does not allow application of the provisions of Chapter XXI-A
to socio-economic offences and Section 265A (2) confers arbitrary power to the
government to decide those offences which constitute socio economic offences.[64] As a result, this concept of plea
bargaining is not applicable to a large number of legislations such as
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, Narcotic Drugs Psychotropic Substances
Act, 1985, Prevention of Corruption Act, etc. Thus it goes against the very
purpose of reducing the burden of cases.
Under the provisions of Chapter XXI-A, it is
mandatory for the courts to satisfy itself that the application filed by the
accused is voluntary. In a country like India, a person may voluntarily agree
to apply for Plea Bargaining in order to avoid expensive and long drawn
litigation despite being innocent. The innocent can plead guilty due to the
feeling of hopelessness at attempting to rebut the evidence of the police, the
severity of the sentence anticipated, the weariness of the case dragging on and
the attractiveness of the existent scheme.[65] The Act is silent on whether such
application should be accepted or not and whether such cases would amount to
voluntarily or involuntarily filing of application. Furthermore, if the court believes the application was made
involuntarily, it must proceed from the point where it was filed. Fulfilling
the duty entrusted upon the Courts to decide on whether a case is fit for plea
bargaining or not also will take up time of the courts. Instead, this process
may be more time consuming since the courts will have to first determine
whether the application is voluntary or not and accordingly decide after that.[66]
Section 265C provides guidelines for mutually satisfactory
disposition. Under this section, the Court shall issue notice to the concerned
parties and ensure that the process of working out a satisfactory disposition
of the case is voluntary. However, it does not provide any timeline for such
disposition. The next step after the mutually satisfactory disposition is the
preparation of report by the court and the court has to record such
observations and proceed further in accordance with the provisions of Cr.P.C,
even here there is no time prescribed for the preparation of the report and
recording observations which is a major drawback and essentially goes against
the purpose of introducing plea bargaining. It also does not provide any
guiding principle to the Court to ensure transparency and that the accused is
not coerced at any stage.[67] After
the passing of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
("BNSS"), the plea-bargaining process is outlined in Chapter XXIII of
the BNSS, with sections spanning from 289 to 300.
During the parliamentary debates on this procedure, the legislators
were not fully aware of the proposals being tabled and their relation to the
Law Commission Reports discussed before.[68] The legislature as a whole seems to have been blind to how
modifications such as plea bargaining would function within the Indian context
that was fleshed out in the previous part.[69] It was demonstrated how plea bargaining is a good ‘fit’ for
the U.S. system as it offers incentives to prosecutors to induce defendants to
waive trials. In India, defendants have several procedural rights / structural advantages that allow them to challenge proceedings and stall
their progress.[70] Since there are greater restrictions on inducing pleas in India than the
United States, there is little opportunity for either prosecutors or judges to
exercise leverage against defendants to force them to plead. This means for
plea bargaining to succeed, it had to be a more attractive option than the
several alternatives available within the system for the defendants to choose.
The highly regulated plea bargaining that was introduced clearly fails in this
regard. If we look at cases where the defendant wishes to settle with a victim or
prosecutor to end the matter, is plea bargaining the optimal route to follow in
those cases? It contests with already existing procedures that are more
favorable to defendants as they do not end in a conviction.
In India, the conviction rates are as it is quite low. The trend is
significant as since independence conviction rate in cognisable crime have been
consistently falling. The oldest record in this respect is that of 1953, the
year when NCRB began collating crime data. In that year, the percentage rate of
conviction to total cases tried was almost 64%. In the next decade it improved
to 65%.[71] However, 70s onwards it has been consistently declining, dropping to
less than 40% in 2012.[72] As per the NCRB report, Crimes in India, 2016[73], at the national level only
47% convictions happen in Indian Penal Code (IPC) crimes.[74] Thus, there are
high chances that the accused will be acquitted, not by the trial court, then
on appeal. So, there is not much incentive to go for plea bargaining. Also,
when plea bargaining is certainly not resulting in acquittal or limited to
penalties or payment of damages, accused may not find it as useful and plea
bargaining may not operate as incentive at all.
For the cases where defendants might voluntarily agree to
move for plea bargaining, the design of the model renders it difficult for any
agreement to materialize. Contrary to the efficient two-party negotiation model
of the U.S. federal system, the Indian model allows for tri-partite bargaining
under the watchful eye of the judge.[75] Judges are usually wary of engaging
in the plea process due to the possibility of coercion over defendants. Also,
by giving victims a veto right while making negotiations has made the process
tenuous as victims of most criminal offences do seek retributive justice as it
is difficult to translate physical pain into monetary terms.[76] This can result in a stalemate.
Another reason for its failure is that in the US, if a
first time offender opts for plea bargaining, his name is not included in the
criminal records and is not treated as a convict, thereby being eligible for
jobs. His name is kept on Watch List akin to Probationer, depending upon his
crime but his name does not get reflected in Criminal Records Office. After a
specific time, if his conduct remains unblemished, his name is struck off the records
and the same is not available to private parties to access and the person can
live and start his life afresh.[77] On the other hand, in India a defendant entering into
plea bargaining is considered as a convict and his name will appear in Crime
Record Office records for life, thereby making him ineligible for many jobs.
Despite the fact that he had undergone punishment or was convicted, he will
carry the stigma of being a convict for life. In such a scenario, given a choice, the defendant
would rather prefer to go for a very lengthy trial where invariably he is
likely to be acquitted going by the state of our criminal justice system,
rather than entering into plea bargaining. What he loses at the most is the
number of years in terms of trial but he remains at the most an under-trial,
which is in any case better than being a convict as being an under-trial does
not carry that sense of stigma which a convict does in our society. Even, if he
is an under-trial, it does not disqualify him from seeking a job.[78]
In USA, the defendant entering into plea bargaining is
educated to the extent that he himself understands the meaning of plea
bargaining, consequences and implications of entering into plea bargaining. It
is not something that he is forced to enter into but he does with considerable
due diligence but he does it by choice after due diligence which is not the
same being in practice in the Indian scenario. In India, most of the defendants are simply unaware of the existence of
this process. These defendants are often without representation or have
state-appointed counsel who might not be aware of the process themselves.[79] Since judges’ hands are tied, it is difficult for them to actively
encourage defendants to use the process.[80] Also, the accused often does not
realise the consequences of his voluntary admission of crime and might later
try to retrace on understanding the consequences.[81] Not all cases falling under plea bargaining can be
said to be made freely and voluntarily but as result of coercion.
There would certainly be other factors affecting the decisions of
individual defendants to not plead for bargain but the above mentioned reasons
are the most significant ones in the Indian scenario.
CONCLUSION
AND SUGGESTIONS
The judicial backlog is a key challenge
that India is confronting today. There are various reasons for
backlogging of cases and there is a dire need to take every positive step that
can be thought of for reducing the caseload of the Indian courts. Introduction
of the concept of Plea Bargaining is one such step aimed at bringing down the
number of pending cases and ensuring speedier disposal of cases. Despite being
in the statute for more than a decade, the usage of plea bargaining is still
very low. The ambit of plea bargaining was restricted to very limited number of
offences, as opposed to the model of plea bargaining in the US, as the concept
was introduced on an experimental basis.[82] There is an urgent need to thoroughly look into and study its working
and impact, so that appropriate changes can be made. There is a need to amend
the law contained under Chapter XXI-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure in
order to make it an effective tool in transforming our criminal justice system
and to achieve its desired objectives.
After studying the concept of plea-bargaining
in India, the following suggestions can be made, on the law of plea bargaining,
·
Public prosecutors can co-ordinate with
investigating agencies, so that the entire class of officers working in various
departments of Government can be educated. Every prosecutor in the country must
master the provisions of Chapter XXIA of the Code relating to plea bargaining.
Intensive training at the instance of the State Legal Services Authorities for
prosecutors is highly essential. Services of eminent judges and jurists can be
utilized. Along with the prosecutors, investigating officers and officers
working in correctional agencies also should be sensitized on the importance of
these provisions.
·
For its successful implementation, awareness of
this provision needs to be spread people accused and among the police,
prosecutors and judges so that they are capable of making the accused
understand this concept fully. Each prosecutor can develop a strategy to
effectuate the plea bargaining process with the help of the State Legal
Services Authorities. Trainings/Seminars can be conducted to disseminate
knowledge on this aspect. The awareness programme should be held in jail among
trial prisoners who can come within the purview of Chapter XXI-A of the Code.
If this is done, this will help decongest the overpopulated jails all over the
country.
·
Training of judicial officers at State Judicial
Academy level and also at the level of National Judicial Academy, Bhopal on
this subject is essential. This would certainly improve their dexterity and
capability to achieve the desired results. Moreover, positive change of
attitude and concern will be the result of intensive training to the judicial
officers.
·
Chapter XXIA of the Code is a self-contained
provision so far as our country is concerned. Judicial offices must have clear
understanding of their role under the various provisions contained in Chapter
XXIA. Unless they master the statutory provisions and understand the object
behind it, they may not be able to implement plea bargaining effectively.
·
Legal Services Authorities have to perform a
major role in the propagation of this concept. They must conduct seminars
creating awareness among the lawyers about the problems of backlog and the
relevance of plea bargaining as an alternative.
·
Lawyers have a vital role to play in view of
their participation in the negotiation process. For this, the Legal Services
Authorities with the help of various Bar Associations may conduct classes for
lawyers and legal Aid Counsel. Services of judges and jurists can be sought for
creating awareness.
·
A provision may be made in Chapter XXIA of the
Code making it mandatory for the Court to inform the accused who appears in
connection with trial of an offence, to which Chapter XXIA applies, that it is
open to the accused to take the advantage of plea bargaining. Somewhat similar
provision has been made, in a different context, in Order XXXIIA, Rule 3 of the
Civil Procedure Code.
·
Once an application for plea bargaining is filed
by an accused, he has no chance of withdrawing the same. If it fails, the
matter reverts back to regular trial and the accused does not suffer any
prejudice for whatever he has stated in his application. Therefore, a Judge
must have a changed mind set to see that such application does not fail. He
should also develop negotiating skills.
·
The
scope of this clause must be broadened, and the classification for giving the
advantage of plea bargaining should be based on the gravity of the offense
rather than the number of years specified as punishment.
·
Adequate safeguards must be put in place to
protect the innocent and punish the guilty, as pervasive bargaining without
transparency and specific guidelines will perpetuate the image that justice is
for sale and will inevitably lead to public cynicism.
·
The judge overseeing the implementation of the
scheme must be impartial and in no way involved in the bargaining. The judge must be convinced that the defendant is pleading guilty
knowingly and voluntarily. He must retain a broad discretion as to
whether to accept or reject the plea bargain.
·
Any
court order rejecting a plea negotiating application must be kept confidential
to avoid prejudice to the accused.
In order to ensure that due process is
followed, the plea bargaining scheme must be carefully regulated. If all the
above measures are complied with and the government agencies work fairly and
justly, it would not be wrong to say that the concept of plea bargaining will
not only work in India but will also bring tremendous changes in the criminal
justice system of our country.
[1] Garner, BA, Black's Law Dictionary, (Thomas
West, USA, 8th ed., 2004).
[2]
https://thelawdictionary.org/article/three-reasons-plea-bargains-controversial/
as accessed on 8th March, 2024.
[3] Joseph, Rosie, Athulya, Plea Bargaining: A Means to an End, available
at http://www.manupatra.com/roundup/326/Articles/Plea%20bargaining.pdf as accessed on 25th November, 2024.
[4] Messitte J. Peter, Judge, Plea
Bargaining In Various Criminal Justice Systems, available at
https://www.law.ufl.edu/_pdf/academics/centers/cgr/11th_conference/Peter_Messitte_Plea_Bargaining.pdf
Montevideo, Uruguay, May, 2010 as accessed on 7th
April, 2018.
[5]U.S. Sentencing Commission
Guidelines available at https://www.ussc.gov/, as accessed on 23rd April, 2024.
[6] Langbein, H., John, ‘Understanding
the Short History of Plea Bargaining, Faculty Scholarship Series, 1979,
available at http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/54 as accessed on 28th
July, 2024.
[7] Ashraf, Mohammed & Absar,
Aftab, ‘Plea Bargaining in India: An Appraisal’, available at https://www.academia.edu/29990187/Plea_Bargaining_in_India_An_Appraisal as accessed on 25th October, 2024.
[8] Rewari, Sulabh & Aggarwal,
Tanya, Wanna Make A Deal? The
Introduction Of Plea-Bargaining In India, [(2006) 2 SCC (Cri) J-12]
available at http://www.supremecourtcases.com/index2.php?option=com_content&itemid=1&do_pdf=1&id=977 as accessed on 27th October, 2024.
[9] U.S. Sentencing Commission (2014):
Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics, available at
http://www.ussc.gov/Data_and_Statistics/Annual_Reports_and_Sourcebooks/2010/FigureC.pdf
[10]Alschuler, Albert, ‘Plea Bargaining and Its History’,
Columbia Law Review, 1979.
12 397 U.S. 742 (1970)
[11]397 U.S. 742 (1970)
[12] 397 U.S. 742 (1970)
[13] 404 U.S. 257, 260 (1971)
[14] Rule 11, Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure, available at
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_11, as
accessed on 28th October, 2024.
[15] Supra note 8.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Supra note 4.
[18] Ibid.
[20] Santhy, K. V. K., ‘Plea Bargaining
in US and Indian Criminal Law Confessions for Concessions, 2013, available at http://www.commonlii.org/in/journals/NALSARLawRw/2013/7.pdf
as accessed on 27th October, 2024.
[21] Ashraf, Mohammed & Absar,
Aftab, ‘Plea Bargaining in India: An Appraisal’, available at https://www.academia.edu/29990187/Plea_Bargaining_in_India_An_Appraisal as accessed on 27th October, 2024.
[22] Ibid.
[24] AIR
1979 SC 1369.
[25] 142nd, Law Commission
Report, 1991, available at http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/101-169/Report142.pdf, pg. 3, para 2.7 as accessed on 27th
October, 2024.
[26] Aarora, Neeraj, Plea Bargaining- A
New Development in The Criminal Justice System, available at
http://www.neerajaarora.com/plea-bargaining-a-new-development-in-the-criminal-justice-system/
as accessed on 27th October, 2024.
[27] Supra note 20.
[28] A.I.R 1968 SC 1267
[29] 1980 AIR 854
[30] Bawaniwal, Rajat, Plea Bargaining in the Indian Criminal
Justice System: An Analysis (The World Journal on Juristic Polity, March,
2017)
[31]
Ibid.
[32] 1980 Cr.L.J 553
[33] AIR 1983 SC 747
[34]A.I.R 2000 SC 164
[35] 2000 Cr.L.J 384 (386)
[36] 2000 Cri LJ 4996.
[37]
http://lawgupshup.com/2017/05/plea-bargaining-an-analysis-in-respect-of-the-indian-legal-system/
as accessed on 27th October, 2024.
[38] Section 265A of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973.
[39] Supra note 12.
[40] Supra note 6.
[41]
Ibid.
[42] Section 265E of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973.
[43] Section 265K of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973.
[44] Section 265H of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973.
[45] Section 265G of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973.
[46]Vishnoi, Apoorva & Narayanan,
Neha, ‘Plea Bargaining In India and Abroad’, available at https://www.academia.edu/22548673/Plea_Bargaining_in_India_and_Abroad as accessed on 27th October, 2024.
[47] Ibid.
[48] Ross, J. E., ‘The entrenched
position of Plea Bargaining in United States legal practice’, The American
Journal of Comparative Law, 2006 available at http://eujournal.org/index.php/esj/article/viewFile/4670/4465
[49] Supra note 20.
[51] Plea Bargaining in India, Criminal Justice Administration,
MHRD, available at epgp.inflibnet.ac.in/ as
accessed on 27th
October, 2024.
[53] AIR 1983 SC 747
[54] (2005) Cr.L.J. 2957
[55] 2007(99) DRJ 198
[56] 2010(2) Cri.CC 857
[57] Gupta, Neeta, ‘Plea Bargaining In
India: An Overview’, International
Journal of Applied Research, 2015; 1(11): 372-375 available at http://www.allresearchjournal.com/archives/2015/vol1issue11/PartF/1-11-11.pdf as
accessed on 22nd November, 2024.
[58] Sekhri, Abhinav, ‘Plea
Bargaining’s Resounding Defeat? The Indian Experiment With Plea Bargaining’,
available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3085659 as accessed on 27th October, 2024.
[59] National Crime Records Bureau,
CRIME IN INDIA – 2014, available at
http://ncrb.nic.in/StatPublications/CII/CII2014/Table%204.5.pdf as
accessed on 29th October, 2024.
[60] Tikku, Aloke, Crime Records
Show Widespread Abuse of Plea Bargain Law, Hindustan Times, November 24,
2015, available at http://www.hindustantimes.com/india/crime-records-show-widespread-abuse-of-plea-bargain-law/story-rcq9UCrMeD13fbnJjGZffN.html as accessed on 27th October, 2024.
[61] National Crime Records Bureau, Crime In India– 2015, available at http://ncrb.nic.in/StatPublications/CII/CII2015/FILES/Table%204.5.pdf as accessed on 20th October, 2024.
[62] National Crime Records Bureau,
Crime In India– 2016, available at http://ncrb.gov.in/StatPublications/CII/CII2016/pdfs/NEWPDFs/Crime%20in%20India%20-%202016%20Complete%20PDF%20291117.pdf as accessed on 27th October, 2024.
[63] Supra note 29.
[65] Supra note 8.
[66] Supra note 30.
[67] Supra note 33.
[68] Supra note 30.
[69] Ibid.
[70] Ibid.
[71] Available at http://indpaedia.com/ind/index.php/Conviction_rate:_India as accessed on 26th October, 2024.
[72] Ibid.
[73] NCRB report, Crimes in India,
2016, available at http://ncrb.gov.in/StatPublications/CII/CII2016/pdfs/NEWPDFs/Crime%20in%20India%20-%202016%20Complete%20PDF%20291117.pdf as accessed on 27th October, 2024.
[74] Available at
https://www.gktoday.in/academy/article/crime-in-india-2016-report-of-ncrb/ as
accessed on 27th October, 2024.
[75] Sekhri, Abhinav, Plea Bargaining’s
Resounding Defeat? The Indian Experiment with Plea Bargaining, 2018 available
at http://ssrn.com as accessed on 27th October, 2024.
[77] Plea Bargaining In India: Need for
Relook, April 19, 2017, available at http://jimsgnblog.blogspot.in/2017/04/plea-bargaining-in-india-need-for-relook.html as accessed on 27th October, 2024.
[78] Ibid.
[79] Supra note 3.
[80]
Ibid.