SECTION 183 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE READ TOGETHER WITH 317 - INDRAWANSA Vs. OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, POLICE STATION, WENNAPPUWA AND ANOTHER

-

 



UNQUALIFIED PLE OF GUILT 

Blogger speaks...

Indrawansa vs. Officer-in-Charge, Police Station, Wennappuwa and Another has been reported in the Sri Lanka Law Report.

 

Background and Circumstances

The case involves the accused-petitioner, Indrawansa, who was charged on 6 counts under the Penal Code and the Motor Traffic Act for negligent driving, resulting in the death of one person and injuring another. The accused pleaded guilty to all charges during the proceedings in the Magistrates Court of Marawila. when the charges were read out to him his unqualified admissision was " I admit the offence. Permit me to pay the sum in installments". 

Consequently, the Magistrate imposed sentences that included both fines and imprisonment. The accused, aggrieved by the sentence, appealed to the High Court of Chilaw, which altered the sentences for counts 2 and 6. Thereafter the accused appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Issues and Findings

Procedural Requirements for Admission of Guilt (Section 183 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act. Section 183(1) Outlines the procedure when an accused admits guilt. The Magistrate must record the plea in the accused's own words and pass the sentence according to the law. The accused may withdraw the plea before the sentence is passed.

Section 183(2) is applicable to a situation where an accused does not make a statement or makes a statement that does not amount to an unqualified admission of guilt.

In this case, the Magistrate recorded the accused's unqualified admission of guilt, which was procedurally flawless. The accused did not seek to withdraw the plea, thus the conviction and sentencing proceeded lawfully. 

2.  Appeals Based on Law (Section 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act)

Section 317(2), limits appeals to matters of law when a conviction is based upon an unqualified admission of guilt. 

The accused's appeal was based on legal principles, asserting procedural and substantive errors in sentencing.

3.Legal provisions regarding sentencing  and substituting a sentence are provided for in Section 328 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act)

Section 328(b)(ii) permits the appellate court to alter sentences subject to certain legal limits.

The High Court revised the fines and term of imprisonment imposed  for counts 2 and 6,  due to inconsistencies with the statutory limits for fines.

Analysis of Legal Provisions.

1. Section 272 of the Penal Code  fines for specific offenses, with a statutory maximum of Rs. 100.

2. Motor Traffic Act, Section 151(1), 214(1), and 216B specifies fines and imprisonment  for traffic offenses, with amended maximum.

3. Code of Criminal Procedure Act, Sections 183, 303(2), 317, 328 governs plea of admissions, sentencing, and appeal procedures.

4. Increase of Fines Act, No. 12 of 2005: Amended the fine limits under the Motor Traffic Act. 

Examination of Prior Judgments and their Influence

1.   R v. O'Neill (1979) 2 NSWLR 582; (1979) 1 A Crim R 5.

This case established that a guilty plea constitutes an admission of all essential crime elements, making further proof unnecessary.

2.  Amadoru v. Officer in Charge, Special Criminal Investigation Unit, Wennappuwa [2011] 2 Sri LR 315 reinforced the mandatory obligation of a magistrate to record a verdict of guilt and pass sentence upon an unqualified admission of guilt.

3. Mudiyanselage Suraj Sanjeewa v. Officer in Charge Police Station and others (CA/PHC/APN/17/19), highlights that a plea of guilty is unequivocal unless the accused later claims misguidance or misunderstanding of charges, which was not applicable in this case.  

4. Bandara v. Republic of Sri Lanka (CA/134/1999) discussed the importance of reviewing evidence and circumstances in sentencing, which the High Court considered while varying sentences.

5. In Karunaratne v. The State 78 NLR 413, it was emphasized that sentencing should balance the gravity of the offense with mitigating circumstances such as impact on the offender's family.

6. Attorney General v.  [1995] 1 Sri LR 138 reiterates the need to consider the impact of the offence on the society and the institution affected, alongside the offender’s circumstances. 

The Supreme Court concluded that:

The procedural handling of the guilty plea by the Magistrate was correct.

The High Court's substitution of sentences for counts 2 and 6 was lawful and within the statutory framework.

The accused's contention regarding withdrawal of the guilty plea was invalid, as he did not seek legal representation or mitigation before sentencing.

The overall sentencing considered the gravity of the offense, criminal negligence, and societal deterrence, affirming the High Court’s judgment.

 Conclusion

 The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, emphasizing the procedural correctness and legal soundness of both the original and substituted sentences. The principles discussed in this case underscore the importance of proper procedural adherence and balanced sentencing that reflects both the offense's severity and the offender's circumstances.


CLICK ON ME TO READ THE JUDGMENT

 


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

CIVIL PROCEDURE AMENDMENT NO 43 OF 2024

-
Image
  defult of appearance - An overview  by GalleLaw Blogger  on the amendment 43 of 2024 to section 86, 87 and 88 to the CPC  VACATION OF exparte ORDERS, JUDGMENTS AND DECREES. The Civil Procedure Code (Ordinance No. 2 of 1889) governed case procedures in the Original and Appellate Courts for nearly 85 years, from 1889 until 1974, when it was replaced by the Administration of Justice Laws No. 44 of 1973 and No. 25 of 1974. During a brief period from 1974 to 1977, the Civil Procedure Code was superseded by the AJL. However, in 1977, the Civil Procedure Code of 1889 was reinstated by the Civil Courts Procedure (Special Provisions) Law No. 19 of 1977. Section 86 of the Civil Procedure Ordinance outlined the procedures for setting aside a decree *nisi*  (a provisional judgment)  under the CPC ordinance. Under Section 86(2), if a defendant provides reasonable grounds for the default, the court was empowered to set aside the decree and resume the case from the s...
Read more

What law governs the granting or remanding of an accused or suspect person? The law that governs the granting or remanding of an accused or suspect person is the Bail Act No. 30 of 1997. This Act provides for the release on bail of persons suspected or accused of being concerned in committing or having committed an offense. It also provides for the granting of anticipatory bail and other related matters. The Bail Act establishes that the grant of bail should be the guiding principle, subject to exceptions as provided for in the Act, and refusal to grant bail should be the exception. It prevails over the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act and other written laws, except for the Release of Remand Prisoners Act, No. 8 of 1991.

-
Image
  SUMMARY BY THE BLOGGER    Background:  The accused has been indicted for the offense of grave sexual abuse of a minor, an offense is punishable under section 365B (2) (b) of the Penal Code. The accused was initially released on bail by the Court. The trial against the accused commenced on 21-07-2022. On 5th October 2023, the Court ordered the accused to be remanded pending further trial. The Lawyer for the accused filed a motion seeking bail, but it was refused.   The petitioner, acting on behalf of the accused, filed an application for revision in the Court of Appeal invoking Article 138 of The Constitution. After considering the facts, circumstances, and relevant law, the Court ordered the immediate release of the accused from remand custody on the earlier bail conditions.   1.   The Court relied on section 263 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act to remand the accused, but failed to consider the relevant provisions of the Bail Act No. 30 of ...
Read more