LAKSHMI PRASAD Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Trial Court in its order has observed that the counsel for the applicant did not challenge the conviction, but pressed the appeal only on the ground of quantum of sentence. The learned Court below without referring to the merits of the matter and even without referring to the facts which led to the conviction of the appellant, observed that the appellant has undergone trauma of Court proceedings for 25 years or more, therefore, the sentence of two years deserves to be reduced to the period of six months. The Court below also observed that the period of detention between 16-10-76 to 17-11-76 be given as set off under Section 428, Cr.PC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has instructions to contend before this Court that the appeal was pressed on the merits also, but the learned Appellate Court did not consider the merits. According to him, the order passed by the Court below deserves to be set aside. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that so far as the factual aspect as to what happened in the Court, if arc recorded in the Court proceedings or judgment, then the said statement of the Judge, shall be acceplcd to be correct.

(2.) This Court, so also the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that if a particular fact in relation to the Court proceedings is mentioned in the order of the Court, then, enquiry into the correctness of such observation cannot be made. Only exception to the said universal rule is that the person who was present in the Court or the counsel who had argued the matter before the Court, if files an affidavit before the very same Presiding Officer, challenging the correctness of the statements recorded in the proceedings or order, only then, the comments of the said Judge could be called. In the present case as no application or affidavit was filed before the Appellate Court that the appeal was argued on the merits and there was a wrong mention in the final judgment that the appeal was simply argued on the question of sentence, it would not be possible for this Court to make an enquiry into these allegations. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the manner in which the appeal has been disposed of, is not in accordance with law or in any case, runs contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court, reported in (Stale of V.P. Vs. Ctiandrika). In the said matter the Supreme Court had observed that the concept of "Plea Bargaining" is not recognised and is against public policy under our criminal justice system. The Supreme Court also observed that the method of short-circuiting the hearing and deciding the criminal appeals or cases involving serious offences requires no encouragement. It was also observed that the Court has to decide the matter on merits. If the accused confesses his guilt, an appropriate sentence is required to be imposed. The approach of the Court in criminal appeal or revision should be to find out whether the accused is guilty or not on the basis of the evidence on record. If he is guilty, an appropriate sentence is required to be imposed or maintained. If the appellant or his counsel submits that he is not challenging the order of conviction, as there is sufficient evidence to connect the accused with the crime, then also the Court's conscience must be satisfied before passing the final order that the said concession is based on the evidence on record. In such cases, sentence commensurate with the crime committed by the accused is required to be imposed. Mere acceptance or admission of the guilt should not be a ground for reduction of sentence. The accused cannot bargain with the Court that as he is pleading guilty the sentence be reduced.

(3.) The above referred observations of the Supreme Court in the matter of State of U.P. Vs. Chandrika (supra), in fact are the guidelines to all Criminal Courts, which are either trying the matters or hearing the appeals or hearing the revision petitions. The order passed by the Court below does not meet the test nor does conform to the guidelines given by the Supreme Court. As already observed, the order passed by the Court below docs not even refer to the facts of the case, it does not mention as to what were the allegations. It does not take into consideration as to whether the offence was serious or what was its gravity, nor does it record anything as to why the accused must be held guilty. The order passed by the Court below deserves to and is accordingly set aside. The matter is remitted to the Court below for deciding the appeal in accordance with law. The applicant is said to be in jail; if he makes an application before the Appellate Court, then in accordance with law and if the Court finds that the present is a fit case for releasing the applicant on bail, the applicant shall be released on bail.