(2005-06) Railway Budget
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
already budgeted the money for construction of the R.O.B on this level crossing in the last year, and this year's (2005-06) Railway Budget. I request the Ministry of Railways to complete the remaining formality, if any, to start the work of construction of the R.O.B. to relieve the sufferings of the people and vehicles passing through this level crossing No.81/A. 14.47 hrs. CRIMINAL LAW (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2005 MR. CHAIRMAN : Now, we shall take up the legislative business, Item No.30, Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill, 2005. THE MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS (SHRI SHIVRAJ V. PATIL): Sir, I beg to move: "That the Bill further to amend the Indian Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as passed by Rajya Sabha, be taken into consideration. " Sir, this Bill seeks to amend the Indian Penal Code, the Criminal Procedure Code and the Indian Evidence Act. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you amending all the three statutes by this Bill? SHRI SHIVRAJ V. PATIL: We are trying to amend certain sections of these statutes by moving this Bill and getting this Bill passed. It seeks to introduce a new Section in the Indian Penal Code. That new section is recognized as Section 195A. The Indian Penal Code provides that a person who gives false evidence can be punished but a person who induces another person to give false evidence or threatens another person to give false evidence cannot be punished under the existing Indian Penal Code. This clause provides for punishment, which can be awarded, to a person who induces another person to give false evidence or threatens another person to give false evidence. The punishment provided is seven years imprisonment but if it is found that a person has been sentenced to life because of the false evidence given, the inducer or a person threatening can also be given the same kind of punishment. Not only seven years punishment can be awarded but also life imprisonment can be imposed on him. Clause 195(a) provides this. Sir, there is a provision that when a witness gives false evidence or produces a false document, he can be prosecuted. But the application for prosecuting him is required to be given by the judge himself and by no one else. It was very difficult for the judge who had to decide the cases to go to other courts and file the complaints and appear in the courts and things like that. We are now providing that the judge can file the complaint or he can authorize any other officer to file the complaint. This is a provision which facilitates prosecuting the witnesses giving false evidences. Now, this is another provision. This Bill seeks to introduce Chapter 21(a) in the Criminal Procedure Code to provide for plea-bargaining. What is plea-bargaining? This is a new provision that we are introducing in the Criminal Procedure Code. Plea-bargaining is practised in other countries. Plea-bargaining is something more stringent than the provision provided in the Criminal Procedure Code for compounding the offence. And it is less stringent than the provisions provided in the Criminal Procedure Code for sentencing and punishing the accused person. This is a route followed in between these two extreme positions. When a case is filed in a court, there are certain provisions, certain kinds of cases that can be compounded. The accused and the complainant can be allowed to compound these cases; compounding is allowed. There are certain cases in which the permission of the court is required to compound the cases. And once the compounding is allowed when the compromise is allowed between the accused and the complainant, the accused is treated as acquitted. Accused is without any blame and he can go scot-free. By having this provision, that is, provision for plea-bargaining, we are saying that in cases which are of a little more serious nature, when the case is filed in a court of law, the accused person can go to the court and say that I admit the guilt. And he is subject to himself to your judgement under the provision of plea-bargaining. Such an application has to be accompanied by an affidavit and he has to say in the affidavit that he is doing it on his own without being under any pressure or without having been threatened in any manner. Of his free volition, he is doing this. That is what he is to submit in the court. If the court comes to the conclusion that what he is doing is correct then the court can give a notice to the prosecutor. If there is one to the lawyer who is supporting the accused - if the prosecutor is not there - and to the other lawyer also, the court can say that he can discuss this matter outside the court, and he can compromise in the matter. On the kind of compromise that could be arrived at, the accused, the complainant, the prosecutor and the defence lawyer could talk to each other outside the court. They could decide what they should do to dispose of the case, to get the case disposed of by the court. In their discretion, they could decide that the victim could be given compensation. They could decide that the accused could be allowed to submit to the court and seek for lenience and things like that. When the matter is presented to the court, the court could accept the kind of agreement arrived at between the parties. The only thing that the court has to do is to see that everything that is being done is being done of free volition and without subjecting them to any kind of pressure. That is the only precaution the court has to take. Once the court comes to the conclusion that they are doing it on their own, without any pressure from any quarter, the court could accept that. When this kind of an agreement is arrived at, there are certain other conditions provided. If the minimum punishment is provided in any other law, what is to be done? There are many laws which say that five years' punishment is the minimum punishment that could be awarded or not less than five years' punishment has to be awarded. In that case, this plea bargaining provision provides that the court shall allow a punishment which is equal to half of the minimum punishment. So, half of the minimum punishment could be given. In other cases, where the minimum punishment is not provided for, the court could give a punishment which is equal to one-fourth of the punishment. These are the provisions here. There are certain kinds of cases in which plea-bargaining is not allowed. What are those cases? If an accused could be punished to death or if it is a matter of very serious nature, such matter is not subject to plea-bargaining. If an accused could be punished for life imprisonment, such a case cannot come to the court for plea-bargaining. If an accused could be punished for more than seven years, the case cannot come to the court for plea-bargaining. If a juvenile offender is involved, the case cannot be treated under plea-bargaining. If there is any economic or social offence involved, such a case cannot be treated under plea- bargaining. These are the conditions under which plea-bargaining is allowed. What are the advantages of plea-bargaining? One of the advantages of plea- bargaining is that the victim could be given compensation. This law provides that when they talk to each other compensation could be decided upon by the parties involved. So, the accused would give the compensation and the victim would get the compensation. This is a new concept. Under the old law, under the existing criminal jurisprudence, the concept is to punish the offender. The concept is not to give compensation to the victim but to punish the offender. In recent times, in our country and in other countries and other parts of the world also, the concept of giving compensation to the victim is getting accepted slowly. It is not sufficient to punish an offender. The offender should be punished but that does not give any substantive relief to the victim. That is why, now, the concept of giving compensation to the victim is getting accepted. 15.00 hrs. We have introduced a law very recently, which is the Communal Harmony Law, as we call it, which is a law on prevention of communal violence and compensation to the victims. We have introduced it and it may come up in the next Session or after that for discussion in this House. We have provided in that, that the victims of the communal violence shall be given compensation. Compensation by whom? This compensation can be given by the persons who are responsible for creating the violent situation in that area. This compensation can be given by the Government or by any other trust or by any other body who is created for this purpose. In other countries the trusts are created and those trusts are giving compensation to the victims of the violence. So, it is one of the most important things which provided that the offender should be punished. As is rightly said by the hon. Member who was sitting here- I do not know whether he is here or has gone out - the offender has to be punished. But that is not sufficient. The victim has to be compensated and that concept has been accepted.