LI Network
Published on: 10 September 2023 at 12:15 IST
In a recent case concerning allegations against a Border Security Force (BSF) constable, the Supreme Court has cast doubt on the validity of a conviction based on a guilty plea.
The case revolved around accusations that the constable had taken photographs of a lady doctor while she was bathing.
The Court raised concerns about the credibility of the confession, pointing to several critical factors, including the absence of an eye-witness, the recovery of the camera from another person’s house, and inconsistencies in witness statements.
The Court questioned why the constable would confess when there was minimal evidence against him.
The Court emphasized that even when an accused officer pleads guilty, the court, in this case, the Summary Security Force Court (SSFC), must ensure that the individual comprehends the charges and the consequences of pleading guilty.
This is crucial to prevent uninformed or coerced confessions.
The Court stated, “It ensures that before pleading guilty the accused is aware of not only the nature and meaning of the charge which he has to face but also the broad consequences that he may have to suffer once he pleads guilty.
This not only obviates the possibility of an uninformed confession but also such confessions that are made under a false hope that one could escape punishment by pleading guilty.”
Even if an accused pleads guilty, if it appears that they should plead not guilty, the SSFC is obligated to advise them to withdraw their guilty plea.
In this case, the respondent’s guilty plea was challenged due to violations of BSF Rules, particularly Rule 49, which provides accused individuals with a reasonable time, not less than 24 hours, to make their statement after receiving the abstract of evidence.
The Court found that this rule had been breached in the case.
Furthermore, the SSFC failed to indicate what advice they gave to the respondent, as required by Rule 142.
The Court noted that the burden was on the prosecution to demonstrate that the guilty plea had adhered to BSF Rules, and the High Court was justified in scrutinizing the evidence.
As a result, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to review the evidence and dismissed the appeal.
The case, titled “Union of India v. Jogeshwar Swain,” centered on allegations against a BSF constable who faced a Summary Security Force Court for his actions.