On 8th June, a single judge bench of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court consisting of Justice V.G. Arun while allowing a criminal revision petition, in the case of Raseen Babu K.M. vs. The State of Kerala, held that a monosyllabic answer 'yes' in the questionnaire prepared at the stage of framing charge, cannot, under any circumstance, be termed as pleading of guilt by the petitioner, based on which the court could have convicted him. It was further held that any judgement of the court convicting on such grounds is liable to be set aside.
Facts of the case:
The present criminal revision petition has been filed by the petitioner after being convicted by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Parappanangadi. The incident leading to registration of the crimes occurred on 02.06.2014 when the accused allegedly obstructed the procession taken out from the Thrikkulam Government High School, Chemmad, in connection with the school admission festival and assaulted some of the volunteers. Thereafter, he was charged under sections 143, 147, 353 read with 149 of the IPC and Section 35 (sic) of the Kerala Prevention of Disturbances of Public Meetings Act, 1961. All accused were convicted by the trial court on their pleading guilty of the offences. The judgments are challenged mainly on the ground that the procedure adopted by the trial court in finding the accused to have pleaded guilty was patently illegal.
Contentions of the Plaintiff:
Sri. D. Anilkumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended on the following grounds:
- It was argued that the magistrate failed to ensure that the plea of the petitioner was voluntary, clear and unambiguous.
- The counsel contended that a monosyllabic ‘yes’ elicited as an answer to the pointed question to the petitioner’s guilt will not satisfy the requirements to convict the petitioner.
- It was submitted that the petitioner was not made aware of the consequences of his pleading guilty and the unknowing act has resulted in the petitioner being denied appointment in the ranked list of Constable (Telecommunication).
- It was argued that the impugned judgment is bad for non-application of mind.
Contention of the Respondent:
Sri. T.R. Renjith, learned Public Prosecutor argued on the following grounds:
- The court charge in the cases was framed and read over to the accused on 09.03.2017. Thereafter, the accused were asked whether they had committed the offences.
- The accused answered “yes” when asked whether he had committed the offences he was accused of. This was then treated as pleading of guilt and the accused were convicted.
- Based on the above facts it was abundantly made clear that, conviction of an accused based on the plea of guilty is not an empty formality.
Observation and judgement of court:
The Hon’ble Bench of the Kerela High Court observed the following:
- The term 'pleading guilty' requires a positive and informed act of admitting all the elements of the offence/s.
- Mere lip service or a monosyllabic 'yes’ cannot, under any circumstance, be equated with, or accepted as, pleading of guilt by the accused.
- The court relied on the decision of the High Court of Assam while stating that an order convicting an accused on his own admission is not a final order as it is open to revision.
It was held by the court the petitioner having pleaded not guilty at the first instance, recording of the monosyllabic answer 'yes' in the questionnaire prepared at the stage of framing charge, cannot, under any circumstance, be termed as pleading of guilt by the petitioner. As such, the judgments convicting the petitioner are liable to be set aside.
The revision petition was thus allowed.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kerala_New_High_Court.jpg
