Court: Need to encourage plea bargaining for disposal of cases

MUMBAI: In view of the huge pendency of cases before all strata of courts in India, the move by accused and prosecution for disposal of the cases through plea bargaining needs to be welcomed and encouraged, a sessions court has observed.
This, the court said, would help achieve the object of the legislation behind introducing plea bargaining in the Indian criminal justice system.
In plea bargaining, an accused can plead guilty for a lesser sentence.
The court's observations came last week in a judgment convicting nine persons seven years after they were booked for abusing and assaulting BMC officials who attempted to vacate a Mazgaon chawl that was to be demolished. The accused opted for plea bargaining.
Instead of sentencing them, the court allowed their release on a bond of good behaviour for a year. "Admittedly, accused have no criminal antecedents, I find that this is not a case where the sentence or punishment is warranted. Instead, the ends of justice would meet if these accused are released on probation of good behavior as per Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act," judge S D Tawshikar said. Under the Act, an accused can be let off on a bond of good behaviour instead of serving a sentence.
The accused were also ready to pay compensation of Rs 90,000 to the informant, Netaji Jathre, BMC's assistant engineer, maintenance of E ward. "I appreciate the act of the informant to voluntarily remit the amount of compensation to the BMC," the judge said.
Imposing conditions, the court said the accused are to undertake not to commit similar offences during the probation period.
On June 6, 2016, an FIR was registered against Kishor Parmar, Pushpa Goyal, Jasuben Bariya, Meena Parmar, Nirmala Charniya, Ramiya Koli, Nitin Boricha, Vasant Padhaya and Jayanti Goyil for the offence related to assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from discharge of his duty. Co-accused, Bhanji Bhaskar, died during the pendency of the plea and the case against him was abated.
At the time they were charged, the offence attracted a maximum sentence of two years in jail. Following an amendment, it now carries a maximum sentence of five years' imprisonment.
The judge said after having gone through the FIR and chargesheet, it can be gathered that the accused, being the occupants of the premises which was sought to be vacated by BMC, had obstructed the action to save their roof and demanded suitable alternative accommodation. "It is submitted by both the sides that these accused later vacated the premises and have not committed a similar offence till date," the judge said.