The Sentencing Discount: An Empirical Study of Plea Bargain Outcomes

Authored By: Shaurya Pratap Shishodia

Law College Dehradun, Uttaranchal University

Abstract

This article attempts to examine the origins and the developments of the concept of plea bargaining as well as the current situation of the legal system in India following the 2005 criminal law (amendment) Act. The Indian criminal justice system’s appearance has unquestionably changed as a result. This article also discusses how the notion of the plea bargaining has been applied by the Indian judicial system. The benefits and the drawbacks of plea bargaining are also emphasized in this article. This article examines the legislative procedure used to implement the law commission of India’s recommendations. With the use of case laws, this article attempts to analyze the Supreme Court’s stance on the plea bargaining.

Introduction

The current trend of India shows the worst condition of pendency of the cases in the Indian courts which are more than three crores. A large number of cases have been pending before the courts for more than about twenty years. The Chief Justice of India showed a very deep concern about this worst condition of pending cases and gave his words about it by stating that the pending cases will be cleared in about five years from now.

A very famous quote, “justice delayed is justice denied, “Seems to be true because several high-profile cases were delayed in India. Examples of such cases that get delayed in India are the Uphaar Cinema fire, a case of 1997 in which the decision came after waiting for a period of 18 years. In the Bhopal gas tragedy, a case 0f 1984 the case went on for several years but the main mastermind or culprit was not punished. Same as these cases the victims of the Anti-Sikh riot case of 1984 were waiting for justice because the main accused had not been sentenced guilty till now.

If the reports are taken into the consideration then it shows that nearly about 2.5 lakhs accused are under trial prisoners and their lives are deteriorating in the prison out of them approximately 20,000 prisoners were in prison for about five years or more. As per the reports of the government, the pendency of the cases in the Supreme Court is 71,411 as on August 2, 2022, out of which 56,365 are civil matters and 15,076 are criminal matters, this data is given by the Union Minister of law and Justice Kiren Rijiu to the Rajya Sabha. This statistical data shows that more than 10,491 cases are not disposed of for over a decade.

In the case of Hussainara Khatoon V. Home Secretary, State of Bihar the court observed that “No procedure may be considered as reasonable, fair or just and would violate Article 21 of the Indian Constitution if it does not guarantee a relatively short and fair trial”. In the case of Kadra Pahadiya V. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court held that “It is a disgrace to our adjudicatory system that men are kept behind bars for years at a time without being tried. No one should be allowed to hold the accused in prison for more than a reasonable period, which should not exceed one year for session trial” the court remarked with compassion.

What is Plea-bargaining and Its Definition?

The simplest and one-liner meaning of plea bargaining is, “Plead guilty and ensure less sentence in return”. Scholars and practitioners do not share the same view on the meaning of plea bargaining. The definition of plea bargaining is different and depends upon the jurisdiction and the context of how it is used. The definitions can be shaped to suit each form and jurisdiction in which they are negotiated, making it difficult to formulate a strict all encompassing definition. The Oxford Dictionary defines ‘plead’ as an appeal, prayer, request or formal statement made by or on behalf of the defendant and ‘bargain’ as a negotiation, settlement, deal or pact. As a result, the term Plea bargaining may refer to a formal appeal or statement by the defendant seeking a peaceful resolution with the prosecution for the offence charged against the defendant and during the plea bargaining process the prosecutor may agree to reduce the charge, drop one or more charges, or recommend a lessor punishment as a result of the bargain. Sometimes the prosecutor will also agree not to prosecute other co defendants, not to oppose probation, to allow the defendant to serve in prison, or to have the defendant tried in juvenile court.

Plea bargaining is a negotiated agreement between both the prosecutor and the criminal defendant whereby the defendant admits his guilt to a single charge or a lesser charge in return for a concession from the prosecutor, typically a less sentence or the dismissal of the other charges.

Plea bargaining is a practice in which the accused waives his right to plead not guilty and demands a full trial in exchange for a benefit. The said benefit is generally associated with the charge or sentence. In simple words plea bargaining means that the accuser’s guilty plea was bargained and some concession was given to him in exchange.

According to the 142nd Law Commission report the common and general meaning of plea bargaining is pre-trial negotiation which is conducted by the counsel and the prosecution between the defendant, and during this process, the defendant agrees to plead guilty and in return for this he/she gets some concession from the prosecutor.

Historical Development

Because of adversarial system’s complexity it was very difficult to obtain a conviction in criminal trials which led to unjustified delays. Plea bargaining is a phenomena that was brought about by the inefficient justice system and the length of the criminal proceedings. Plea bargaining not only brought relief to the accused who only brought relief to the accused who had been held in prison for years due to trial delays but it also proven to be a time and money saving solution for the court system to speedily resolve the criminal cases.

Plea bargaining wasn’t generally accepted in the society prior to 1920’s. The Supreme Court of the United States of America did not formally recognise the practice and legitimacy of plea bargaining until Brady v. United States, Santo Bello v. New York and Bordenkircher v. Hayes.

However in the case of Brady v. United States, the first American case on plea bargaining the Supreme Court held that a bargained plea of guilty would not be invalidate because the agreement was made out of concern that the trial would end in the death penalty. The plea agreements are only acceptable under the right circumstances and under oversight according to the US Supreme Court. In the case of Santo Bello v. New York, justice Burger wrote that the plea bargaining is an important step in the criminal process and ought not to be dismissed. In the case of Bordenkircher v. Hayes, the court held that the plea bargaining has an important role in the judicial system and has been accepted by all courts. Justice Stewart declared that threatening a stiffer sentence is permissible and a part of any legitimate system which tolerates and encourages the negotiations of plea.

Prior to the 5th july,2006 , when the criminal law (amendment) Act 2005 went into effect , the idea of plea bargaining was foreign to Indian judicial system. The idea of plea bargaining as such was not acknowledge by Indian criminal law. The plea bargaining were viewed as a violation of Article 21 of the Indian constitution as of that time neither the code of criminal procedure nor any other law permitted the plea bargaining, the Supreme Court adopted this approach.

Types of Plea-Bargaining

Plea bargaining is already used in other nations around the world although being new to India. In fact 75% of criminal cases are resolved through plea bargaining in the United States of America.

The plea bargaining can be categorised into the following four types:-

Charge Bargaining
Sentence Bargaining
Fact Bargaining

Each category involves implicit sentence reductions, although they are accomplished in different ways.

Charge Bargaining: – Charge bargaining refers to the dropping of some or all of the charges against an accused person in exchange for a guilty plea. In this situation the defendant has the option of entering a plea of guilty to a lower charge or to merely some of the accusations made against him. Charge bargaining may be allowed with the prosecution’s agreement when the accused admits guilt and does the wrong but this totally depends upon the prosecution’s desire. The prosecution might accept it or ignore it.
Sentence Bargaining: – In exchange for guilty plea, a charged may be reduced from one that is more serious to one that is less serious like from murder to manslaughter, etc. After admitting guilt, the prosecutor makes a demand to the advocate a particular sentence or a bargained penalty to the court or they can do it directly with the trial judge. The accused may choose to confess their guilt in exchange for a less sentence. For this reason the accused must be made aware of the sentence which will be likely to be given if he refuses to accept the responsibility. If accuses does this then the prosecutor may request a different sentence than what he had originally requested in an effort to demonstrate the accused’s innocence or to shorten the court proceedings. In the United States they can only be allowed if the trial judge approves of them. Sometimes in the high profile trials the prosecutor will refuse to drop the charges against the defendant out of concern for the media’s reaction. Sentence bargaining takes place in less serious situation such as when a prisoner pleads guilty to a charge in return for a sentence of “time served” which typically means rapid release.
Fact Bargaining: – Fact bargaining is that bargaining which involves admitting to some truths in exchange for a promise to refrain from using other well known facts as evidence in court which is the least common. In fact bargaining a prosecution consents to not challenge an accused version of the events or to withhold from the court any aggravating factual circumstances. When evidence of an aggravating factor might result in mandatory minimum term or a more severe punishment under sentencing guidelines, this type of bargaining is likely to take place. .

Nature and Concept of Plea Bargaining

In India the concept of plea bargaining was introduced through the criminal law (amendment) act 2005. The code of criminal procedure, 1973 was amended to provide for plea bargaining in certain types of criminal cases. However, plea bargaining is not available in all criminal cases, and it is limited to certain offences that are punishable with imprisonment up to 7 years.

The plea bargaining process in India involves the accused and the prosecutor negotiating mutually acceptable plea agreement. The accused must first make a plea of guilt before a court of law, and the court must satisfy itself that the plea is voluntarily and has been made with the knowledge of the consequences. The court may then proceed to record the plea, and if it is satisfied that the plea is voluntarily, it may pass a sentence according to the plea agreement.

Plea bargaining has certain advantages in the Indian judicial system. It reduces the burden on the courts by facilitating speedy disposal of cases. It also helps to reduce the backlog of cases and provides a more efficient and effective way of dealing with the criminal cases.

However, plea bargaining is a controversial issue in India. Some argue that it compromises the justice system by allowing guilty parties to receive reduced sentences in exchange for information or testimony against others. Some critics argue that it can be useful tool for expediting cases and reducing the burden on the judicial system.

Plea Bargaining in India

The first factor that might be taken into account is institutional specifically whether this procedure is compatible with the current Indian system. In India, a person may only be found guilty and sentenced in a line with the legal process. A law of this nature must be fair and reasonable. Yet rather than being a practical one, the issue is more of an academic one. In this context it becomes urgently necessary to assess the current status of the plea bargaining in India in light of judicial precedents, statutory changes and code of criminal procedure requirements.

Plea bargaining are intended to avoid pricey, unreliable trials and possibility of harassment in all small and medium sized offences when the harm to society is minimal. The principle behind compounding crimes that already exist in the code of criminal procedure is the same, although the methods used and the range of offences covered are various and diverse. Therefore the central government amended the code of criminal procedure by act 2 of 2006, inserting a new chapter XXlA/XXIII the device of plea bargaining in order to make the criminal justice system efficient and time bound for the disposal of the pending cases, on the recommendation of the Malimath committee. When an individual is charged with a crime and files an application in the court where the case is being tried, the process of plea bargaining begins on filing that application. When the magistrate receives a report in accordance with section 193 in a police case or when the magistrate took cognizance of the offence based on the private complaint than accuse is entitled to this benefit. The court that receives the application is required to examine the defendant in camera in order to ensure that he or she filed the application freely..

Procedure related to plea bargaining are provided under section265A to 265L in chapter XXIA of Criminal Procedure Code and Section 289 to 300 in chapter XXIII inserted in the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 are as follows: –

Section 289– Every accused person charged with a crime that is not punishable with death, life imprisonment or period of imprisonment more than 7 years is eligible to enter into a plea bargaining. According to sub clause (2) the central government have the power to notify the offences. The central government published the notification no. 501042(11) on July 11, 2006 listing the offences that have impact on the nation’s socio economic situation.
Section 290– It considers the accused filling a request for a plea bargaining. The request must include a brief description of the case including the offence it relates to.

It must also be accompanied by an affidavit signed by the accused stating that he voluntarily prefer the plea bargaining in his case after understanding the nature and severity of the punishment provided by the law for offence.

The public prosecutor, the case investigation officer, victim and accused will thereafter receive the notice from the court on the date set aside for this purpose. The court will examine the accused in camera while the parties are present and other parties are not present because the court has to ensure that the accused has voluntarily filled the application.

Section 291– It outlines the steps the court must take to reach a resolution that is acceptable to all parties. In a case brought on the basis of a police report, the court must give notice to the public prosecutor involved, the case’s investigating officer, the victim, and the accused to attend a meeting to discuss how best to resolve the matter. The court must notify the accused and the case’s victim in a complaint case.
Section 292– It relates to how the court prepares its report on whether a mutually satisfying resolution was reached or not. The Court shall compile a report of such disposition, which shall be signed by the presiding officer of the Courts and all other participants in the meeting, if an acceptable resolution of the matter has been reached in a meeting held pursuant to Section 291. If, however, no such resolution has been reached, the Court shall record such observation and proceed in accordance with the provisions of this Code from the point at which the application under subsection (1) of section 290 in such case has been filed.
Section 293– When a suitable resolution to the case is reached, it specifies the process to be used to dispose of the cases. The Court must hear from the parties regarding the severity of the punishment or the accused’s eligibility for release on probation for good behaviour or after admonition after the proceedings under S. 292 have been completed and a report has been prepared and signed by the court’s presiding officer and the parties present. The accused may be punished by the court by receiving a sentence, or they may be released on probation under the terms of S. 401 of the Sanhita, the Probation of Offenders Act of 1958, or any other applicable legislative laws. When sentencing the accused, the Court may, in its discretion, impose the minimal punishment prescribed by law for the offences committed by the accused, or, in the absence of such a provision, may impose a sentence equal to one-fourth of the punishment specified for the offence. In addition to this, if a report prepared under S. 292, report on mutually satisfactory disposition, contains a provision providing the victim compensation in circumstances of release or punishment, the Court must additionally issue instructions to give the victim such compensation.
Section 294– It deals with making a judgement call over a mutually agreeable resolution.
Section 295– According to this clause, no appeal may be filed in opposition to such a decision.
Section 296– It discusses the court’s authority over plea negotiations. For the purposes of carrying out its duties under Chapter XXIII, a court should have all the authority granted to it under the Criminal Process Code with regard to bail, the adjudication of offences, and other matters related to the resolution of a case.
Section 297– It makes the sentence imposed as a result of a plea agreement subject to Section 468.
Section 298– It contains a non obstante clause that states that the chapter’s provisions shall apply despite any other provisions of the Code that are inconsistent with them. Nothing in those other provisions shall be interpreted to define the scope of any chapter XXIII provision.
Section 299– According to this clause, the accused’s declarations or facts made in a plea agreement application may not be used for any other reason save those specified in the chapter.
Section 300– Any juvenile or child, as defined in Section 2(k) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, is exempt from the application of this chapter.

Law Commission Reports on Plea Bargaining

The Commission has been concerned by the issues brought on by unusually long turnaround times for criminal trials and appeals. Hence, in 1991 the 142nd law commission report entitled “concessional treatment” for people who chose to plead guilty without any negotiation, the commission suo moto took up this problem and spent a great deal of time on debating it. The 142nd report of 12th law commission uncovers the justification for and details of its successful operation in the United States of America in legislative form. The abovementioned concept should be made practically applicable to offences punishable by a sentence of less than seven years in jail and or a fine, such as those listed in section 320 of the code of criminal procedure. Also, it was suggested that the plea bargains may take into account the nature, seriousness and extent of the offences. It was also stated that the person suspected for serious socioeconomic offences, habitual offenders, and those accused of crime against the women and children should not have access to this abovementioned concept.

The 154th report of 14th law commission goes into great detail about the idea of plea bargaining in chapter XIII. This report recommends that the code of criminal procedure should include a separate chapter XXIA on plea bargaining. Plea agreements can be considered a crucial part of the criminal justice system, according to the 154th report of 14th law commission, if they are handled properly and wisely. The code of criminal procedure must include specific rules and procedures for that aim. The commission claims that India’s criminal law has not yet accepted the concept of plea bargaining. However the plea bargaining is seen as one of the options for handling the massive backlog of the criminal cases.

The law commission approved and reaffirmed the recommendation of the 154th report of 14th law commission in chapter nine of the 177th report of 16th law commission.

According to the 2000 Report of the Committee on Reform of Criminal Justice System under the Chairmanship of Justice (Dr) Malimath, plea bargaining is a method for resolving backlogs of cases and accelerating the administration of justice in the United States. The Malimath Committee proposed in its report that a plea-bargaining mechanism be implemented in India’s criminal justice system to speed up the conclusion of criminal cases and lessen the load on the courts.

Indian Judicial Response on Plea Bargaining

Prior to the Criminal Process (Amendment) Act 2 of 2006, the notion of plea bargaining had no recognition in the administration of the criminal justice system in India. Despite being widespread in western nations, including the US, UK, and Australia. Plea bargaining has become extremely prevalent in the US, although it is only used seldom in the other two nations.

In terms of India, the early judicial announcements’ judicial opinions regarding the subject were unfavourable. The Supreme Court observed principles for the first time in Madanlal Ram Chandra Daga v. State of Maharashtra in 1968, the Supreme Court held it is quite improper for a court to enter into a deal of this nature. According to the degree of the accused’s guilt, crimes should be prosecuted and punished. The court may issue a low sentence if it determines that it is appropriate given the circumstances of the case. Yet, the court should never take part in a deal where money is recovered for the complaint through their representative, hence we disapprove of the High Court’s course of action.

In case of Murlidhar Meghraj Loya v. State of Maharashtra the Hon’ble Supreme court observed that According to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act of 1954, the defendants were being tried for selling contaminated food. The accused appeared to have entered a guilty plea before the magistrate court in accordance with a loose trilateral arrangement that resembled the plea bargaining process utilised in the United States, the court concluded. In spite of his distress about the matter of agreement, Judge Krishna Iyer only reaffirmed that the system of plea bargaining is not permitted under Indian criminal law. The experienced judge also shared his support for plea deals at the time.

In case of Kasambhai Abdulrehmanbhai Sheikh v. State of Gujrat the Supreme Court of India went a step further and ruled that plea bargaining is inherently illegal and will encourage widespread corruption. The idea of plea bargaining is extremely open to exploitation in the Indian context.

In case of State of Up v. Chandrika the Supreme Court opined that the Indian Criminal Justice System does not recognise plea bargaining and considers it to be against public policy. The Supreme Court had adopted this stance since, at the time, neither the Code of Criminal Procedure nor any other statutes permitted plea bargaining. This context led to the mention of a “process established by law” as being in breach of Article 21, and if the procedure had been authorised by a legal provision, the objection would not have been raised.

In case of state of Gujrat v. Natwar Harchandji Thakor the Gujarat High Court praised this procedure and stated, “Given the present realistic profile of the pendency and delay in disposal in the administration of law and justice, fundamental reforms are inevitable. The very purpose of law is to provide easy, cheap and expedient justice by resolution of disputes, including the trial of criminal cases. Nothing ought to be stationary. So, it can be concluded that plea bargaining is an effective remedy that will provide judicial changes a fresh perspective.

In case of R.K. Saxena v. State of Maharashtra the 1940 Drugs and Cosmetics Act’s Section 33 EEC(c) applied to the applicant. He was informed that if he admitted to the crime, he would receive a light sentence. Therefore, after pleading guilty, he was sentenced to three months of simple imprisonment, a fine of Rs. 2,000 each offence, and six months of simple incarceration.

In case of Vijay Moses Das v. CBI Plea bargaining was permitted when the accused was charged with crimes under IPC sections 420, 468, and 471. In the aforementioned case, the accused provided ONGC with subpar materials at the incorrect port, which resulted in significant losses for ONGC. As a result, ONGC filed a criminal complaint against the accused and requested the CBI conduct an inquiry. Although ONGC and the CBI had no objections to the plea bargaining application, the trial court rejected it on the grounds that the accused had not submitted an affidavit according to Section 265-B and that the compensation had not been set. By ordering the trial court to accept the plea bargaining application, the Hon’ble High Court granted the Miscellaneous Application.

In case of Girraj Prasad Meena v. state of Rajasthan the High Court failed to understand, and the trial court dismissed the case on the day the application itself had been submitted admitting guilt, the Supreme Court said in a statement through Judge Dr. B.S. Chauhan. Even in the absence of this, the trial court was required under Chapter XXIA, which was added with effect from 5.7.2006, to notify the victim before extending any benefits of the kind that have been provided in the current case. So, it is obvious that the procedure was broken.

In case of Thippa Swamy v. State of Karnataka J. Bhagwati stated “It would be definitely against Article 21 of the Constitution to influence or lead an accused to plead guilty under a promise or assurance that he will be let off lightly,”.

In case of Vikram Singh v. Union of India the Supreme Court of India held that the plea bargaining cannot be allowed in cases involving offences punishable with death or life imprisonment. The court also held that the prosecutor has a duty to inform the accused of his or her rights to plea bargain and the consequence of doing it so.

In case of State of Gujrat v. Natwarlal Damodardas Soni the supreme court of India upheld the constitutionality of plea bargaining and held that an accused has a right to plead guilty and seek a lesser sentence in certain cases. The court also emphasized that the process of plea bargaining should be conducted in a fair and transparent manner, and that the accused must be fully informed of the consequences of plea agreement.

In case of state of Rajasthan v. Shambhu kewat the supreme court of India held that the process of plea bargaining should not be used as a means to allow the accused to escape punishment or to compromise the interest of justice. The court also emphasized that the prosecutor has a duty to ensure that the plea bargaining process is conducted fairly and transparently.

In case of state of Uttar Pradesh v. Amar Mani Tripathi, the supreme court of India held that the accused has a right to enter into plea bargaining agreement voluntarily and that the court must satisfy itself that the plea is voluntarily and has been made with full knowledge of the consequences and also free from ant type of coercion.

These case laws have helped to shape the legal framework around plea bargaining in India and have established important principles regarding the rights of the accused, role of the prosecutor and the interest of the justice.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Plea Bargaining

First we talk about the advantages of the plea bargaining which helps our judicial system to grow some of them are as follows: –

Uncertainty from the legal process can be curbed down through this. Plea bargainers avoid the potential uncertainties that a trial would bring. Also, it is a means of avoiding the harshest punishment that may be given to them if a judge or jury judged them guilty. Over 500,000 people are imprisoned in the US on charges, but they are not convicted since they are awaiting trial. Plea negotiations expedite this procedure.
Certainty for conviction is fully there. When they bring a defendant to trial, the prosecution also engages in gambling. There is always a possibility that the jury will acquit the defendant. It guarantees a conviction by accepting a plea agreement. It removes that person from society or imposes a punishment that still has some chance of bringing about justice.
Plea bargaining can also be a very effective tool in judicial process. Offering a plea agreement that involves testifying against someone else is one approach to get witnesses for a big case. This procedure enables prosecutors to seek the maximum punishment against the person or people they believe are most accountable for a crime as it occurs and to imprison everyone involved in a major case.
More resources can be provided by the plea bargaining for the community. Every police officer involved in the investigation that resulted in charges may be compelled to testify if the matter goes to trial. Other law enforcement organisations may be called upon. It is possible to request psychologists to conduct assessments of a person’s competency. According to the NCJRS, the expense of prosecuting and defending a drug offender in the criminal justice system in the United States may exceed $70,000 for each event.
From plea bargaining the population of prisoners in jail can be curbed down. Many people who are awaiting trial are housed in municipal jails. These jails, which are frequently managed by local government officials, offer little in the way of therapy, education, or rehabilitation. These are merely detention facilities with a bed, food, and not much else.
Plea bargaining avoids the publicity. Plea bargaining is also a useful tool for preventing exposure because the longer the case drags on, the more attention the accuser receives. Plea bargaining thereby prevents such publicity by hastening the resolution of the case. Renowned and common Individuals whose livelihood depends on their standing in the community and those who wish to avoid unwarranted shame.

Now we talk about some disadvantages of plea bargaining that our system is facing some of them are as follows: –

Plea bargaining snatches the right to have a fair trial from the accused. Every person in the United States has a constitutional right to a jury trial. It can appear as though you’re trying to forcefully give up your rights by offering a plea deal to get out of this trial. It might be criminal to coerce a defendant into taking a plea offer. For a plea agreement to be useful, the defendant must always have the option of going to trial.
Plea bargaining can affect the investigation procedure and can make it poor. There is a claim that this idea results in faulty investigation techniques because plea deals rather than trials are chosen in 90% of cases in certain nations. Because they anticipate that the matter will be resolved through a plea agreement, lawyers and law enforcement agents may not take the time to properly prepare one.
Because of plea bargaining an innocent accused can also face a criminal record. An innocent person could accept a plea deal to lessen their punishment. Because of that agreement, they will have a criminal history. They might be required to serve jail or prison time. Paying fines or making amends may be necessary.
There is no chance of an appeal in case of plea bargaining. There are a number of grounds on which an appeal may be filed if a defendant loses at trial. Even if the charges are reduced, a plea agreement still requires the defendant to enter a guilty plea, which virtually always precludes the possibility of filing an appeal.
There is a soft justice provided to the accused by the plea bargaining. Even if someone is guilty, a plea agreement frequently results in a reduced sentence. It could be viewed as a prosecutor’s escape route. Some may contend that entering a guilty plea and receiving a predetermined sentence is not the same as being found guilty and receiving a just punishment.
There is a possibility of coercion in case of plea bargaining. Even when an accused person has legal counsel, there may still be strong pressure on him or her to accept a plea deal. The prosecution can highlight the harshest penalty available. In this way, the prosecution might coerce innocent people into taking a plea deal.

Plea agreements have benefits and drawbacks. They can take criminals off the streets, but they can also imprison the innocent. Although a court schedule is made available, the criminal justice system’s efficiency is altered.

Conclusion

“Discourage litigation. Persuade your neighbours to compromise whenever you can. As a peacemaker the lawyer has superior opportunity of being a good man.”

– Abraham Lincoln

Plea bargaining, a different approach to overcrowded jails, overworked courts, and unjustified delays, accelerated the resolution of criminal cases and appeals, reducing the suffering of prisoners awaiting trial. Its use has been a component of the CrPC since 2006, as analysed in its concept and argument. Despite inherent flaws, it offers potential to reduce the burden of criminal courts’ delays and pending cases. The legal profession in India should consider this idea, and legal scholars should strongly support it.

Reference(S):