DOUBLE JEOPARDY IN INDIA

DOUBLE JEOPARDY IN INDIA 

Double Jeopardy, a fundamental right which is guaranteed under Article 20(2) of Constitution of India incorporates the principles of “autrefois convict” or Double Jeopardy which means, “No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offense more than once.”  This article explores the concept of double jeopardy in India, its legal implications and notable cases that have shaped its interpretation. 

Position Double Jeopardy of Criminal Procedure Code

The broad spectrum of the concept is mentioned in Section 300 of CrPC which widens the ambit of the provision in India.

The position of double Jeopardy laws under Criminal procedure code is much wider than what is given in constitution. The concept is defined under Section 300 of CrPC and give a detail analysis by giving provisions on what will form a part of double jeopardy.  One of the major points of emphasis is under CrPC, double jeopardy laws deal with both the issues of autrefois convict and autrefois acquit. Therefore, double jeopardy is applicable to all those who can are either acquit or convict of the offence.

There are six essential clauses and principles related to double jeopardy under CrPC:

1. Autrefois Convict [Section 300 (1)]:  This clause ensures that a person cannot be tried and convicted for an offense for which they have already been convicted. Once a person been sentenced for a specific crime, they cannot be tried again for the same offense. 

2. Autrefois Acquit [Section 300 (2)]: This clause protects individuals from being tried and punished for an offense for which they have already been acquitted. An acquittal serves as a legal bar to further prosecution for the same act. 

3. Same Facts [Section 300 (3)]: Double jeopardy prohibits the prosecution from charging an accused with a different offense if the new charge is based on the same facts or circumstances that led to a previous conviction or acquittal.

4. Same Act or Offense [Section 300 (4): If a person has been tried and convicted or acquitted for a specific act or offense, they cannot be retried for that same act or offense, even if the legal sections or provisions under which they were charged differ. 

5. Conviction and Sentence [Section 300 (5)]: This clause emphasizes that once a person has been convicted and sentenced for an offense, they cannot be tried again for the same offense, underscoring the finality of the judicial process. 

6. Fresh Evidence [Section 300 (6)]: If a new and substantial evidence comes to light after the conclusion of the trial, it may warrant a fresh prosecution, even if the accused has been convicted or acquitted previously. 

Notable cases and Interpretations

1. Mohd. Iqbal vs. State of Jharkhand (2007):

In this case, the Supreme Court held that a person cannot be tried twice for the same offense, even if new evidence emerges during the course of the trial that implicates the accused. This judgement upheld the principle of double jeopardy.

2. State of West Bengal vs. Kishore Singh Kathore (1980): 

The Supreme Court held that if an accused person out of the same transaction and they are convicted for some of these offenses, they cannot be separately punished for each offense. This decision emphasized that the totality of punishment should not exceed what is legally permissible. 

Conclusion 

Double jeopardy serves as a vital legal principle in India, protecting individuals from the injustice of being repeatedly prosecuted or punished for the same offense. Courts have consistently upheld this principle while addressing nuanced situations and ensuring that justice is served without violating an individual’s rights. It stands as a cornerstone of the Indian legal system safeguarding the fundamental rights and freedom of its citizens.

**Author: Saman Zaman, A student at Sultan Ul-Uloom College of Law, Hyderabad.