Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 155 (KER)

Santhosh v. State of Kerala

2003-02-26

N.KRISHNAN NAIR

body2003
Judgment :- 1. Is it open to an accused to withdraw his claim to be tried and plead guilty in the course of the trial? That is the question involved in this case. 2. The petitioner is the accused in S.T. 2722/1998 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adoor. He is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under S.289 IPC and S.185 of the Motor Vehicles Act. When the charge was read over and explained to the petitioner, he pleaded not guilty. Thereupon the learned Magistrate posted the case for trial. Thereafter the petitioner moved an application before the lower court requesting the court to read over the charge once again in order to enable him to plead guilty. The learned Magistrate by the impugned order dismissed the petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner strongly contended that an accused is entitled to withdraw his claim to be tried and plead guilty at any stage of the trial. She further contended that there is nothing in the Cr.P.C, to prevent the court from recording the plea of guilty and convict the accused if the plea is found to be voluntary. 4. No doubt, there is no specific provision in the Cr.P.C. enabling the court to permit an accused to withdraw his claim to be tried and convict him on a plea of guilty subsequently. But as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is also no prohibition in the Cr.P.C. to record the plea of guilty in the course of trial and convict the accused on his subsequent admission of guilt. The object of trial is to investigate the offence and to find out the truth. When the guilt is admitted by the accused and the admission is found to be voluntary, there is no reason why the court should not allow him to withdraw his claim to be tried and plead guilty. In this connection it is relevant to note the decision of the Patna High Court in Shyama Charan Bharthuar and Ors. v. Emperor (AIR 1934 Patna 330). It was held in that case that there is no implication that when an accused in the course of the trial withdraws his claim to be tried and plead guilty, the court is not entitled to record the plea either accept it or continue the trial. v. Emperor (AIR 1934 Patna 330). It was held in that case that there is no implication that when an accused in the course of the trial withdraws his claim to be tried and plead guilty, the court is not entitled to record the plea either accept it or continue the trial. An identical question came up for consideration before the Allahabad High Court in Ram Kishun v. State of U.P. (1996 Crl. LJ. 440). The Allahabad High Court held that a plea of guilt can be taken at any stage of trial after framing charge. The court observed that the necessity of evidence would arise only if and when the charge is not accepted. There is no reason to restrict the applicability of S.229 of the Cr.P.C. to a particular date or occasion but the purport of section is obvious that plea of guilt can be advanced by an accused at any stage of the trial after framing charge. If an accused is allowed to withdraw his claim to be tried and plead guilty, an earlier termination of the trial can be secured and wastage of the precious time of the court can be avoided. 5. For the reasons stated above, I set aside the impugned order and direct the Magistrate to give a further opportunity to the petitioner to plead guilty.