Sattar Vs. State of Rajasthan

penal code - section 302--charge framed, guilt admitted, convicted & sentenced on same day--held, court should accept plea of guilt with caution--case remanded for fresh trial.;appeal allowed - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - murder is a mixed question of law and fact, and unless the court is satisfied that the accused knew exactly what was implied by his plea of guilty, the plea should not be accepted, but the case should be tried specially where the accused is ah ignorant person......pleaded guilty to the charge in the following terms:i have heard the charge and understood it. i admit to have ,committed the offence. i have intentionally murdered navia. i want to give my statement on oath and for that purpose i have made an application separately. i do not want a trial.this plea of the accused in the case referred to was not accepted by this court. murder is a mixed question of law and fact, and unless the court is satisfied that the accused knew exactly what was implied by his plea of guilty, the plea should not be accepted, but the case should be tried specially where the accused is ah ignorant person. in the instant case, the charge was framed on the same day, the plea of the guilty was recorded on the same day, the conviction was recorded on the same day, and the sentence was also imposed on the same day. under these circumstances, it appears that though the court had a discretion to accept the plea of the guilt, but the discretion should be judiciously exercised. it is safer for the courts to explain to the accused as fully as possible the technical ingredients of the offence and fully satisfy itself that the accused has understood them before the plea of guilty is accepted and a conviction is based thereon. the learned additional sessions judge has basically relied upon the word 'hatya' in the plea of guilty by the accused. the details of the injuries were not put to the accused. it has normally been the practice that in murder cases the plea of guilt should be accepted with due caution and vigilance.6. we, therefore, accept the appeal of the accused appellant, set aside the conviction and sentence of the accused and remand the case to the learned additional sessions judge, gangapur city, for a fresh trial according to law. the trial of the case is directed to be expedited.