Plea bargaining in India S.

265B
154th report of law commission of India,1996, Malimath committee report- after this concept of
plea bargaining was added in the CrPc.
In India & England there is sentence bargaining while in America there is charge bargaining.
r a
m b/w the victim & accused wherein the accused
a
Plea- bargaining is the process of bargaining
Sh & victim agrees for that.
offers to pay compensation to thelivictim
n j a
A court either releases the accused on probation or minimizes the
In lieu of compensation the
sentence.
The court reduces the charge upon bargaining i.e. convicts the accused on a lesser charge.
Benefits of Plea Bargaining:
It reduces the burden of courts.
It benefits several under trial prisoners.
It saves the time & cost of litigation.
r m a
ha
li S
It saves the anxiety cost.
a
nj as well as in prisons.
It reduces the congestion inAcourts
It helps the victim in obtaining compensation from the accused.
 Types of Plea Bargaining
Charge Bargaining
“Charge Bargaining” refers to a promise by the prosecutor to reduce or dismiss some of the charges brought against the defendant in
exchange for a guilty plea. This can be further classified into multiple charge and unique charge. In multiple charges some charges are
dropped in return for a plea guilty to one of them. In a unique charge, a serious charge is dropped in exchange for a plea of guilty to a less
serious charge

r m a
Fact Bargaining
ha
j a li S
In fact bargaining, a prosecutor agrees not to contest an accused‘s version of the facts or agrees not to reveal aggravating factual
n
circumstances to the court. There is an agreement for a selective presentation of facts in return for a plea of guilty.
A
Specific Fact Bargaining
In this type of bargaining there is an acceptance of sanction without pleading guilty which is known as the nolo contendere pleas. Another
category of pleas in this category is known as the Alford pleas where there is acceptance of sanction but the defendant asserts innocence.

Sentence Bargaining
“Sentence Bargaining” refers to a promise by the prosecutor to recommend a specific sentence or to refrain from making any sentence
recommendation in exchange for a guilty plea. In cases of sentence bargaining, trial judges, ordinarily, opt to impose sentences not more
severe than those recommended by prosecutors or else afford accused an opportunity to withdraw their guilty pleas.
 S. 265A-265L
S. 265A: application of this chapter.
PO submits the report of an offence punishable with less than 7 yrs.
Plea- bargaining can only be done after police report has been filed.
In complaint cases, after complaint proceedings & issue of process.
r m a
S
In 4 cases there will be no plea bargaining- ha
j a li
1. more than 7 yrs. A n
2. Women (any women of any age)
3. Child below 14yrs. (for male child)
4. Socio-economic offences, Central govt. will decide.
S. 265B application will be filed only where case is pending.
Details will be provided here-

Not having previously

Case brief Nature of convicted of SAME
offence understand
details
r m a offence
voluntarily ha
li S
nature offence Not similar offence

n j a
A
Court will examine accused personally. Date will be fixed & examination will be done in camera.
Examine “whether accused has filed voluntarily or not”?
If court thinks that Plea-bargaining made voluntarily, then negotiate with accused about
compensation that to be given.
application Date of In camera compens
date PP/Complainant compromise
hearing examination
r m a ation
notice
ha
j a li S
PP complainant An
• Purpose
• Application is
voluntarily
• If not voluntarily
Normal trial- No plea-
bargain
 S. 265 C: guidelines for mutually satisfactory disposition

Nowhere any process is mentioned, so court has to device its own mechanism.
Accused may also participate through his lawyer as victim is already represented by Public prosecutor.
In cases instituted otherwise than on police report i.e. on complaint or information.
Court will supervise the meeting. Accused & victim both can represented by their lawyer.
r m a
ha
j a li S
S. 265D+S. 265E: Report of mutually satisfactory disposition to be submitted before the
court. An
application Notice + date Examination voluntarily notice
Supervision of No satisfactory
plea-bargaining if disposition
voluntarily process by court
SENTANCE: If no probation- ½ of minimum given
for that offence.
if written punishment extendable to so & so yrs. s. 360 If satisfactory
then, 1/4th of maximum sentence be given. Probation or minimum sentence disposition Normal
sentence trial
Note: Once judgement given in plea-bargain, then
no appeal can be done against that sentence.
 S. 265 F: Judgement of the court.
In open court & be signed by officer of court.

S. 265G: Finality of the judgement.

 No appeal against judgement given in plea bargaining.

S. 265H: Power of court in plea-bargaining.

 All powers of bail, trial & other matters are vested.

r m a
S h a
S. 265 I: period of detention undergone by the accused to be set off against sentence of imprisonment.

a li
 Time when accused was in custody during trial, inquiry etc.
j
then such period will be deducted from punishment.
S. 265 J: savings. A n
 Overriding provision is given. Provision of plea-bargaining will prevail if any conflict with provision of CrPc.

S.265K: statements of accused not to be used.

Statements given by the accused in plea-bargaining. Whatever statements, admissions given by the accused cannot be used in any other
proceedings i.e. in trial.
S.265L: Non-application of the chapter
Plea bargaining not applied to juvenile justice Act, 2008. (now 2016).
Murlidhar Meghraj Loya v. State of
Maharashtra(1976 SC)
The Hon’ble Supreme Court criticized the concept of Plea Bargaining and said that it intrudes
upon the society’s interests and violates the interests of society.
The Supreme Court observed as under: “In civil cases, we find compromises encouraged as a
more satisfactory method of settling disputesabetween individuals than an actual trial. However,
if the dispute finds itself in the field h rm law, “Law Enforcement” repudiates the idea of
ofacriminal
compromise as immoral. The State a li Scan never compromise. It must enforce the law. Therefore
open methods of compromise j
Anare impossible.”
The Supreme Court has also time and again blasted the concept of plea-bargaining saying that
negotiation in criminal cases is not permissible.
Plea bargaining- comparison with other
jurisdictions
In England & Wales:
The practice of judicial plea-bargaining is governed by the principles laid down by the court of
Appeal in Turner. In this case, the court held that there must be freedom of access between
counsel and the Judge but that any discussion
r m a must be between Judge and both counsel. The
defendant solicitor can be present if hheachooses. The Judge should never indicate the sentence
he is minded to impose or thatahe li Swould impose one sentence on a verdict of guilty and one
A
sentence on a plea of guilty. n j
 In US:
This concept was used in the 19th century itself in the United Nations. The Bills of Rights does not mention about the
practice of plea bargaining but by way of Sixth Amendment, the constitutional validity was upheld. In United Nations,
90% of the criminal cases are settled by plea bargaining and only 10% go to trial. This system in the federal system was
officially recognized by

r m a
passing of the 1974 amendment to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The main requirement is that the accused
ha
should make plea bargaining voluntarily and knowingly without any interference. The court must find that a guilty plea
j a li S
satisfies the requirements of Rule 1149 before the court can accept the plea. In the year 1969, James Earl Ray pleaded
guilty to assassinating
An
Martin Luther King, Jr. to avoid execution sentence. He finally got imprisonment of 99 years. In a landmark judgment
Borden kircher v. Hayes , the US Supreme Court held that the constitutional rationale for plea bargaining is that no
element of punishment or retaliation so long as the accused is free to accept or reject the prosecution offer. The Apex
Court, however, upheld the
life imprisonment of the accused because he rejected the plea of guilt offer of five years imprisonment. The Supreme
Court in the same case, however in a different context, observed that it is always for the interest of the party under
duress to choose the lesser of the two evils. The courts have employed similar reasoning in the tort disputes between
private parties also. In another case, the United States Supreme Court formally accepted that plea bargaining was
essential for the administration of justice and when properly managed, was to be encouraged .
Thank you.

r m a
ha
j a li S
An