Trial Court Can Rely On Accused's Plea Of Guilt Recorded At Charge Stage Even After Full Trial: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court has held that an accused's plea of guilt recorded at the stage of framing of charge does not lose its evidentiary value merely because the Trial Court proceeds to record evidence before deciding the case.

A Division Bench of Justice Michael Zothankhuma and Justice Rajesh Mazumdar observed, "Section 229 Cr.P.C provides that if the accused pleads guilty during framing of charge, the Judge shall record the plea and may, in his discretion, convict him thereon. The above provision nowhere provides that if a trial is held despite pleading guilty, the same implied that the Sessions Court was not convinced of the guilt of the accused."

The observation came while deciding an appeal filed against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Diphu, convicting the appellant under Sections 302 and 436 IPC for the murder of the Gaonburah and two other persons, and for setting fire to several houses and a school building.

The appellant contended that although he had pleaded guilty at the stage of framing of charge, the Trial Court proceeded to record evidence and, therefore, the plea of guilt could not thereafter be relied upon to sustain his conviction. He also argued that there was no evidence proving that he had killed his two daughters.

During the appeal, the High Court found that a number of injured witnesses had not been examined during the trial.

Observing that "Judges cannot take the role of Prosecution or defence" but also "could not afford to be a mute spectator", it directed the Trial Court to record additional evidence of the injured witnesses under Sections 311 and 391 CrPC and Section 165 of the Evidence Act. Pursuant to the Court's directions, four Court witnesses were examined.

On examining the appellant's confession under Section 164 CrPC, the Bench found that while the appellant had admitted to hacking the Gaonburah and "his daughter", the statement did not expressly state that he had confessed to killing both of his daughters. The Court refused to read into the confession what was not recorded.

It observed, "However, as we cannot put words into the statement of the appellant under Section 164 Cr.P.C which are not there, it would not be safe to conclude that the appellant's statement under section 164 Cr.P.C amounted to the appellant confessing to killing his two daughters, though the implication appears to be present."

The Court, however, noted that in his examination under Section 313 CrPC, the appellant had admitted killing the Gaonburah and his two daughters, causing injuries to two other persons and setting fire to houses. It also found that CW-1 Jinaram Amsi, an injured eyewitness, had seen the appellant assault the Gaonburah with a dao.

The Court observed, "Further, CW-1 is an injured witness, whose evidence sets a higher pedestal than an ordinary witness."

Rejecting the appellant's principal contention, the High Court held that the Trial Court had duly recorded the plea of guilt and that the subsequent recording of evidence was only to satisfy itself about the appellant's guilt.

It observed, "The learned Trial Court has recorded the appellant's plea of guilt during the stage of framing of charge and the subsequent trial proceedings has only been made to be doubly sure of the guilt of the appellant."

The Court also found that the requirements prescribed under Form No. (M) 34 of the Gauhati High Court Criminal Rules and Orders had been complied with while recording the appellant's confession under Section 164 CrPC.

It held, "As such, we are of the view that the confessional statement of the appellant under Section 164 Cr.P.C does not suffer from any infirmity and can be acted upon."

Finding no ground to interfere with the judgment of the Sessions Court, the High Court dismissed the appeal.

Case Name: Sibeswar Maslai v. State of Assam & Anr.

LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 112

Case No.: CRL.A.(J)/6/2018

Click here to read the judgment