Monosyllabic 'Yes' cannot be accepted as plea of guilt by accused: Kerala High Court issues procedural guidelines

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday held that a a monosyllabic 'yes' in reply to a pointed question by court cannot be accepted as a plea of guilt by an accused (Raseen Babu KM v. State of Kerala)..The single-judge Bench of Justice VG Arun issued the following guidelines to be followed when an accused pleads guilty for a crime:(i) The Magistrate should frame the charge, specifying the offences alleged against the accused;(ii) The charge should be read over and explained to the accused;(iii) The accused should be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence/s with which he is charged;(iv) The accused should plead guilty after understanding the seriousness of the allegations and the implications of pleading guilty. The plea should be voluntary and expressed in clear and unambiguous terms.(v) The Magistrate should record the accused’s plea of guilty in the words of the accused, to the extent possible.(vi) The Magistrate, after considering all relevant factors should exercise his discretion and decide whether to accept the plea of guilty or not(vii) If the plea is accepted, the accused can be convicted and suitable punishment imposed..The Court passed these directions while hearing a criminal revision petition filed to reverse the conviction of the petitioner by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court at Parappanangadi..He was convicted of obstructing a procession taken out by a high school, and of assaulting some of the participants. Consequently, he was charged for offences under Sections 143 (punishment for unlawful assembly), 147 (punishment for rioting), and 353 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty) read with 149 (guilt of members of unlawful assembly) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 35 of the Kerala Prevention of Disturbances of Public Meetings Act, 1961..The order was challenged mainly on the ground that the procedure adopted by the trial court in finding the accused to have pleaded guilty was patently illegal..Advocate D Anilkumar, appearing for the petitioner, contended that while convicting an accused, magistrates are duty bound to ensure that the plea is voluntary, clear and unambiguous and is put forth after understanding the implications of such admission. He added that the petitioner had not been made aware of the consequences of his pleading guilty either. This conviction resulted in the petitioner being denied appointment to a post, he stated..Public Prosecutor TR Renjith argued that there is limited scope for interference with judgments like these, where the conviction is based on a plea of guilty by the accused..After scrutinising the diary and records of the trial court, Justice Arun found that in a April 2018 hearing, the court asked the accused whether he had committed the offences, to which he answered ‘yes’. Justice Arun also noted that in the questionnaire containing the replies given by the accused, this answer was not recorded. This patent defect indicated that the plea of guilty was recorded in a casual manner, the Court found..The High Court's judgement noted that the procedure prescribed in Sections 240 and 241 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) must be adhered to strictly while convicting an accused based on a guilty plea, since it would result in the accused being convicted without trial. It went on to note,"Mere lip service or a monosyllabic 'yes', in reply to a pointed question by the court, cannot, under any circumstance, be equated with, or accepted as, pleading of guilt by the accused.".Justice Arun also considered the question of whether an accused who had pleaded 'not guilty' at the stage of framing charge, could be permitted to plead guilty at a later stage. In the judgment of Santosh v. State of Kerala, the Court had opined that the plea of guilt can be advanced by an accused at any stage of the trial after framing charge. However, Justice Arun opined that "the dictum in Santhosh requires reconsideration in the light of the subsequent introduction of Chapter XXIA to the Code vide Act 2 of 2006, providing for plea bargaining before the court in which the offence is 'pending trial'.".On the above grounds, among others, the conviction of the petitioner by the trial court was set aside..[Read Order]