Supreme Court of India has raised serious doubts regarding the validity of a conviction based on a guilty plea in a case involving allegations against a Border Security Force (BSF) constable. The constable was accused of secretly photographing a lady doctor while she was bathing, and his conviction rested largely on his own guilty plea. However, the Supreme Court highlighted several critical factors that cast doubt on the credibility of the confession.
The Court pointed out the absence of an eye-witness to the alleged misconduct, the recovery of the camera from a different person's house, and inconsistencies in witness statements. Given these factors, the Court questioned why the constable would confess when there was minimal evidence against him.
The Supreme Court emphasized that in cases like these, where the accused has raised doubts about the voluntariness of their confession, it is essential for the court to satisfy itself that the confession was made voluntarily and that proper procedures were followed. The Court stressed the importance of ensuring that accused individuals not only understand the charges but also the consequences of pleading guilty. This helps prevent uninformed or false confessions.
Even if an accused pleads guilty, the Court noted that if it appears from the evidence that they should plead not guilty, the court must advise them to withdraw their plea. This ensures fairness in the legal process.
The case in question dates back to 2005 when the lady doctor reported seeing camera flashes from her bathroom window while bathing. The incident led to an investigation, and the constable pleaded guilty during the proceedings before the Summary Security Force Court (SSFC), resulting in his dismissal from service. However, the High Court later found that there was insufficient evidence to support his guilty plea and set aside his punishment.
The Supreme Court, in its judgment, highlighted violations of procedural rules, specifically Rule 49 of the BSF Rules, 1969, which grants accused individuals 24 hours to reflect upon the evidence before making a statement. In this case, the respondent was not given adequate time for reflection.
Furthermore, the Court found that the SSFC failed to provide proper advice to the respondent as required by Rule 142, which deals with recording guilty pleas.
In light of these violations and procedural lapses, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to scrutinize the evidence closely and dismissed the appeal filed by the Union of India and BSF.
Case Title: Union of India vs. Jogeshwar Swain
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy