STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. CHANDRIKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) These appeals by special leave are filed by the State of U.P. against the judgment and order dated 28th November, 1997 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal Nos. 2747-48 of 1980 whereby the High Court accepted the plea bargain and maintained the conviction of the respondent under S. 304, Part I, IPC but altered the sentence to the period of imprisonment already undergone (without stating actual period of imprisonment undergone by the respondent) plus a fine of Rs. 5000/- in default of payment R.I. for six months. The respondent along with two others was charged under S. 302 read with Ss. 307 and 34, IPC for committing the murder of one Shyamadeo in Sessions case No. 233 of 1980. The Sessions Judge, Ballia by his judgment and order dated 28-11-1980 convicted the respondent under S. 304, IPC and sentenced him to undergo eight years R.I. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent preferred an appeal before the High Court and at the time of hearing opted not to challenge the findings of conviction recorded by the trial Court with a view to bargain on the question of sentence. Learned single Judge, (Malaviya, J.) accepted the bargain and allowed the appeal by observing inter alia that as the incident had taken place long back and since the appellant had been in jail for sometime, both as under-trial prisoner and as a convict, it was desirable to substitute his remaining period of jail sentence as awarded by the trial Court and altered the sentence as stated above. The State has challenged that judgment and order by filing these appeals.

(3.) It is apparent that the order passed by the High Court is, on the face of it, illegal and erroneous. It appears that the learned Judge has overlooked the settled law or is unaware that concept of 'plea bargaining' is not recognized and is against public policy under our criminal justice system. Section 320, Cr. P.C. provides for compounding of certain offences with the permission of the Court and certain others even without permission of the Court. Except the above, the concept of negotiated settlement in criminal cases is not permissible. This method of short circuiting the hearing and deciding the criminal appeals or cases involving serious offences requires no encouragement. 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 flee bite sentence by pleading guilty.