1. Heard Mr. K. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the respondent.
2. Challenging the judgment and order dated 10.01.2014 delivered in Criminal Appeal No. 09(04) of 2013 by the Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Sonamura this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by the convict who was charged under Section 224 of the IPC which provides that whoever intentionally offers any resistance or illegal obstruction to the lawful apprehension of himself for any offence with which he is charged or of which he has been convicted, or escapes or attempts to escape from any custody in which he is lawfully detained for any such offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
3. This is a distinct provision authorising the court trying such offence to impose punishment in disjunction with whatever the punishment may be imposed for such offence for which the accused is or is sought to be apprehended or the accused attempted to escape from the lawful custody. This court is confronted with a strange case inasmuch as it is well settled that in view of the provisions provided under Section 397(3) of the Cr.P.C., no further revision would be available to the persons whose revision petition has been disposed either by the Sessions court or by the High court. But the petitioner [the convict] has challenged the order of the revision passed by the Additional Sessions Judge. As such, the fact relevant to appreciate the challenge be briefly introduced at the outset for purpose of finding out whether the impugned judgment has caused failure of justice or not.
4. The petitioner is accused of escaping from the lawful custody when he was having medical treatment after being arrested in connection with Sonamura P.S. Case No. 69/2013 under Section 380 of the IPC. The petitioner escaped from the custody [Sonamura CSC (Male ward)] of two police personals who were on guard on 04.07.2013 at about 4.20 hrs.. The petitioner was again apprehended and he was put under the lawful custody. The police investigated the case with permission for such investigation and submitted the final report. Taking cognizance of the said police report, the statement of accusation under Section 251 of the Cr.P.C. was read over to the petitioner in the language [Bengali] which is understandable to the petitioner. The petitioner had pleaded guilty after such accusation was read over to him. The entire substance of accusation under Section 251 and the question that was placed to the petitioner, whether he would plead guilty or not? The entire statement of accusation as read over to the petitioner and his reply as recorded by the trial judge are extracted hereunder : "IN THE COURT OF SUB-DIVISIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE SONAMURA: WEST TRIPURA CASE NO: PRC.277/13 The State ... vs. ... Mitan Miah. SUBSTANCE OF ACCUSATION UNDER SECTION-251 Cr.P.C. I, Sri, Dhiman Debbarma, Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sonamura, West Tripura do hereby state the substance of accusation as required under section-251 Cr.P.C. to you, Name : Mitan Miah Age : 24 years. S/O : Md. Ramu Miah. Residence : Pacchmurti. Police station : Sonamura District : Tamsabari Caste : Muslim, General Occupation : Day labour as follows : That, you on 04/07/13 at about 0420 hours were in the Sonamura CHC (Male ward) undergoing medical treatment being in the lawful custody of the Sonamura police officials namely, T/11255 Nirmalendu Debgupta and T/11276 Rabiram Halam, as you were lawfully arrested in connection with Sonamura PS case No. 69/13 u/s- 380 IPC and were in the police custody as per the order of the court and from that lawful custody you escaped and by so doing you have committed an offence punishable u/s-224 IPC and within the cognizance of this court. Q. Do you plead guilty ? Ans : Yes. The substance of accusation has been stated to the accused in Bengali to which having understood he pleaded guilty and begs mercy of the court. SD/Illegible Shri D. Debbarma Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate Sonamura: West Tripura" As the petitioner pleaded guilty, by the order dated 11.12.2013, delivered in PRC 277 of 2013 the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sonamura, West Tripura convicted the petitioner under Section 224 of the IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 4(four) months for the offence punishable under Section 224 of the IPC.
5. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 11.12.2013, the petitioner filed one revisional petition in the court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonamura, West Tripura being Criminal Revision petition No.09(4) of 2013. By the impugned judgment and order, the said criminal revision petition was dismissed observing as under: "4. I have perused the lower court record and also the order dated 11.12.2013. The order speaks that engaged lawyers were present and accused was examined under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. on his appearance on that date and substance of the accusation has been stated to the accused in Bengali to which having understood he pleaded guilty and begs mercy of the Court. As a result, learned court below convicted him which is not challenged. The provision of Section 251 of Cr.P.C. clearly provides that the accused shall be stated the particulars of the offence by the Court when he appears before the Court or is brought before the Magistrate. It is also mentioned that no framing of formal charge required. So, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the proceeding adopted by learned court below. Hence, the impugned order is not liable to be interfered with and it is hereby up-held and accordingly it is up-held."
6. Mr. K. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the proper assistance was not available to the petitioner when he pleaded guilty and he was totally perplexed. That apart, he has submitted that the police papers including the police report were supplied to the counsel representing the accused and that cannot be treated as the valid supply of the police papers to the accused within the meaning of Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. But Mr. Roy, learned counsel did not deny that the day when the trial court passed the order whereby the petitioner has been convicted was fixed for examination of the accused, the petitioner herein, under Section 251 of the Cr.P.C. Thus, it cannot be stated that the petitioner did not have any preparedness or assistance for such examination. Mr. Roy, learned counsel has relied on two decisions of the Gauhati High court. In Jhantu Das versus State of Tripura reported in (2007) 2 GLR 443 in reference to Section 252 of the Cr.P.C., which provides for conviction on the plea of guilt, it has been observed as under :
"8. From the foregoing provisions, it is seen that on
appearance of the accused charged in a summons case or
when he is brought before a Magistrate, he should be
apprised of the substance of the accusation and he must
be asked whether he pleads guilty or has ny defence to
make. The law enjoins that the particulars of the offence
must be stated to the accused and the record must show
the particulars which were explained by the Magistrate. If
is not explained what the offence is but the accused is
simply told of the allegations, the procedure is bad in Law.
In other words, it should be made clear to the accused for
what he is being tried. However, if the commission of
offences is admitted by the accused it shall be recorded at
once in his own words and not later from notes or, from
memory. If the accused admits the offence, the Magistrate
has the discretion to convict him. If the Magistrate does
not believe in it or if the admission appears to him to be
qualified or if the facts admitted do not appear to amount
to an offence, he will proceed to hear the case under
section 254. The record should further show whether the
accused admitted only the act or omissions, or admitted
them with all the accompanying circumstances necessary
to constitute an offence. The accused cannot be convicted
on his admission unless the facts admitted amount to an
offence."
7. Reliance has also been placed on another decision in
State of Arunachal Pradesh versus Tai Ngomdir reported in
(2010) 4 GLR 332 and that decision has been delivered in the
context of Section 229 of the Cr.P.C. It has been observed in Tai
Ngomdir as under :
"21. In the case of State of Mizoram v. Ramengmamia,
2006 (1) GLR 762, this High Court has held that conviction
on the plea of guilt is discretionary. It has further been
held that before accepting such plea under section 229,
Cr.P.C. the court should be satisfied that the facts placed
before it sufficiently constitutes the offence, charged with.
It has further been held that the court must take care,
before acting on such plea, to ensure that the plea of the
accused is voluntary, clear and unambiguous and that the
accused understood the implications of such admissions."
8. Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned Addl. PP appearing for the state has submitted with sufficient emphasis that from the records it would transpire that the trial judge has placed all the materials and the relevant fact constituting the said offence in the statement of accusation and that was made to understanding of the accused, the petitioner herein and thereafter the question that was put as to whether the accused pleaded guilty or not is straight and without any ambiguity. The answer of the accused was clear by stating ''YES''. Therefore, it cannot be held that the plea that was resorted by the petitioner when the statement of accusation was read over to him was not voluntary, clear and unambiguous in nature. The statements that the accused made was so made after understanding the implication of such plea.
9. Having appreciated the submissions and the records, this court does not find any infirmity in the finding of the trial judge as affirmed by the revisional court. This court does not have any hesitation to hold that the relevant fact constituting the offence punishable under Section 224 of the IPC was explained to the accused and the accused clearly understood the gravamen of the accusation on which he had been sought to be tried. The accused''s statement admitting the commission of offence stood recorded immediately on the same sheet after his response. Therefore, rightly the trial judge did not proceed to hear the case under Section 254 of the Cr.P.C. Since the accused, the petitioner herein admitted that he had committed the offence, it cannot be held that he did not understand the consequence that may ensure based on such admission. It would have been commendable if in the order it had been reflected that the trial judge had also cautioned of the imminent consequence of such plea of guilt that might ensue. Therefore, this court is not inclined to interfere with the conviction. However, considering all the circumstances particularly the strata from where the petitioner comes of this court would accept that element as the mitigating factor for purpose of sentencing.
10. Having held thus, the sentence is reduced from 4(four) months rigorous imprisonment to 2(two) months rigorous imprisonment. This is not a case where the petitioner can be extended with the benefit of Section 360 of the Cr.P.C. Hence, the revisional petition stands partly allowed to the extent as indicated above. Send down the LCRs forthwith.
