This article is written by S M NAWAZ AHMAD pursuing B.B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) 4th Year Student at University Institute of Legal Studies, Chandigarh University, Punjab during his internship at LeDroit India.
ABSTRACT
The doctrine of double jeopardy is a very well encapsulated principle of criminal law, which forms the basic fabric of numerous countries legal systems including the legal system of India. It is become as an essential protection against tyranny where no one can be tried or punished more than once for the same crime. This principle is one of the fundamental entitlements protected under the Indian constitutional provision under Article 20(2) [1]and also this is backed by the Section 300 of the Cr.P.C[2]. All these provisions are aimed at preventing people from the misuse of legal procedures, and preserve the inviolability of free person and the non-appealable nature of the verdicts. In this paper, the author has discussed the concept of Double Jeopardy, then its historical development, the constitutional and legal provision in India and at last the Indian situation regarding the Double Jeopardy law. This paper aims to elucidate the issues and difficulties arise in the process of ascertaining and implementing the principles of double jeopardy with the help of evaluations of the historically significant judgments plus the recent case laws in the light of the modern legal trends and the recent judicial precedents.
Keywords: Double Jeopardy, Article 20(2), Section 300 Crpc, Criminal Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law
INTRODUCTION
Double Jeopardy is a fundamental criminal law doctrine that is designed to prevent the government from using its superior resources to wear down and erroneously obtain an oppressive conviction and sentence of an innocent person and provides absolute constitutional protection against being tried twice for the same offense. This principle has been known since ancient time, it was one of the old Roman laws and is obnoxious among not only modern common law, but also according as observed by history hereinbefore from every State one might take this can’t be considered as a guaranty against authority. Criminal justice can therefore not operate without considering the principle of double jeopardy as it serves as protection to citizens from over prosecution while enforcing the tenet that once a decision is made, it cannot be changed. Nevertheless, the implementation of this principle is not always quite easy because there is always a conflict between the constitutional rights of an accused person and general interests of the society. There is a significant good deal of controversy as to the meaning on what the saying ‘same offense’ embraces, the difference between discharge and conviction, and furthermore the position of exceptions that make up this principle in India. It therefore becomes the scope of this paper to look at the specific aspects of the constitutional and legal provisions of double jeopardy in operation in the Indian legal system and judicial precedents that defines the concept as used in that system.
HISTORICAL EVOLUTION OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY
Although, the principles of the doctrine of double jeopardy austere rooted to earlier legal standards, it was always considered a principle of justice. The root of concept was in the Roman law where it stated that no one should be subjected to two penalties for the same crime. This principle was later adopted by the English common law, which became a set of rules of the legal state of affairs; actual or ideal, relative to and securing of persons from successive trials for the same offense. Autrefois convict was another previous conviction which was used in the common law where people who were convicted previously could not be prosecuted again; Autrefois acquit, on the other hand, was a previous acquittal that also protected people from double jeopardy, that is being prosecuted twice for the same offense.
The concept of double jeopardy was later adopted by different legal systems of the world, including the American legal system that anchored the principle under the fifth amendment of the constitution of the United States of America. The Fifth Amendment also has included an absolute prohibition of double jeopardy by provision of the statement” nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” This concept of double jeopardy has been adopted by countries such as India which provided in the Article 20(2) of the Indian Constitution that no person shall be tried for the same offense more than once.[3]
ARTICLE 20(2) OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION
A principal system that gives assurances against the subjective work exterior of administrative control in criminal things is Article 20 of the Indian Structure. Twofold risk is particularly tended to in Article 20(2), which states that “No person ought to be prosecuted and rebuked for the same offense more than once.” This framework epitomizes the quintessence of autrefois clear and autrefois convict, guaranteeing that a person cannot be attempted for the same offense once more after being cleared or indicted.
The ensure given beneath Article 20(2) is predicated on two basic components:
- Prosecution: In arrange to be found blameworthy of an offense, the respondent must have been lawfully taken care of in a court of law.
- Punishment: The individual must have been rebuffed as a result of the arraignment, meaning that a last judgment of conviction and discipline must have been rendered by a competent court.
For Article 20(2) to apply, both indictment and discipline must be show. This implies that if a individual has been arraigned but not rebuffed (e.g., if they were cleared), or if they were rebuffed but not formally indicted (e.g., regulatory punishments), the security of twofold risk does not apply. This elucidation has been reliably maintained by the Indian legal, guaranteeing that the rule of twofold risk is connected in a way that equalizations the rights of the person with the interface of equity.[4]
SECTION 300, CrPC
Section 300 of the CrPC which relates to the cases of double jeopardy is the legal provision in India aimed at the prohibition of such practice. This provision strengthens the clause of double jeopardy that is against the retrial of a person if the previous trial was done by a court of other jurisdiction and had a result the convicting of the accused or clearing them.
Section 300 CrPC states: This means that a person who has once been taken to court with jurisdiction for an offence and either found guilty or not guilty of the particular offence then he/she cannot be taken to court again for trial for the same offence while the judgment is still effective.
This provision goes even to the extent of offering protection for situations where the previous trial might not have led to punishment but the accused being set free. When such a situation occurs, section 300 CrPC protects the individual from being put on trial for the second time for the same offense, and hence the finality of a decision.[5]
KEY ELEMENTS OF SECTION 300 CRPC
To invoke the protection under Section 300 CrPC, the following elements must be established:
- Previous Trial by a Competent Court: This means the accused has to have been tried by a court that was competent to handle that case and make a determination on the matter.
- Conviction or Acquittal: The trial has to have ended in a conviction or an acquittal, that is, a verdict has to have been passed at Some point.
- Same Offense: The subsequent trial must be of the same offence for which the accused person has been tried earlier before. This implies that there must be a full match of the ingredients of the offenses as the prior trial as well as the subsequent trial.
This protection is not a total bar and is qualified by certain exceptions which are explained in this paper later. However, the provision is very crucial to prevent abuse of legal procedures in ensuring that people are not tried a second time for one and the same offense though it protects the rights of persons and the finality of judicial procedures.[6]
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS ON DOUBLE JEOPARDY
- Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay (1953 SCR 730)[7]
This case is considered one of the most seasoned and most vital from the viewpoint of twofold risk security in India. The Incomparable Court watched that assurance against twofold peril beneath article 20(2) is passable once the individual has been arraigned and rebuffed in a past continuing in a court of law. The truth that the case some time recently traditions specialists is not considered to be a court handle, avoids this case from the assurance beneath Article 20(2). The germane focuses famous by the court are that the protected security against triple risk is subject to the conditions of the past procedures being of legal character, held by a court of competent locale, and which finished in conviction and punishment.
- S. A. Venkataraman v. Union of India (1954 SCR 1150)[8]
In this case, the court clarified on the truth that the clause against the same charge does not fundamentally apply if the earlier indictment comes about in a punishment. But if the past procedures do not involve a punishment, twofold risk will not be a thought. The court included that both indictment and discipline are prerequisites for circumstances in terms of Article 20(2). This made the Prevalent judgment that being arraigned does not sum to twofold risk, there must be discipline as a result of prosecution.
- State of Bombay v. S. L. Apte (1961 3 SCR 107)[9]
This case too clarified the dispute of the “same offence” conceived beneath Article 20(2) and Segment 300 CrPC. The Preeminent Court concluded that the twin indictment put forward that the two offenses have to be rise to, the determination of which suggests that the fixings of the two offenses must be the same. If the ensuing arraignment emerges out of diverse set of truths and or beneath distinctive legitimate arrangements, at that point it cannot pull in the guideline of twofold peril. Outstandingly, the court pointed out that the examination of the address on whether the offenses committed are the same has to be done case by case and taking into thought of the actualities and circumstances connecting the guilty parties to the wrongdoings.
APPLICATION OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY IN CRIMINAL LAW
The twofold risk law is a central guideline in the association of criminal equity, serving to guarantee that people are not subjected to numerous arraignments for similar offense. This guarantee is vital for preserving the sharpness of the legal system, as it prevents the state from using its prosecutorial powers to harass persons or try them again and again in hopes they will be convicted. In any event, there is nuance to the rule and it calls for a careful evaluation of all valid material and true factors.[10]
ILLUSTRATIONS FROM THE INDIAN PENAL CODE (IPC)
To better understand the practical application of the double jeopardy principle, it is useful to examine illustrative scenarios under the Indian Penal Code (IPC
Illustration 1:
Let a person A is charged under the Section 379, IPC for theft and after that trial he is set free by the court. Subsequently, A is accused of the offense of receiving stolen property under Section 411 of the IPC in relation to the very same circumstances. In this case, A might shield himself under the Section 300 CrPC provision by arguing that both charges are related to a similar event and for the second trial to be conducted it would amount to second time punishment. Nonetheless, if the court finds that the constituent parts of the two crimes are also legal, A may not invoke the provisions of double jeopardy.
Illustration 2:
Take the case when B is convicted for sentencing for grievous hurt under Section 325 of the IPC. Later, B is also charged with the section 323 of the IPC with the same occurrence or act of violence. The offences entail different levels of harm and are laws applicable in different sections of the IPC and therefore the court may rule the two offences as not the same. Thus, the second criminal prosecution may continue since B cannot seek protection under the doctrine of double jeopardy.
Illustration 3:
For example, in the given fictional case, C is subjected to a trial on Section 403 of the IPC and the end result is a conviction. Later, C is found guilty of criminal breach of trust under the section 405 of the Indian Penal Code on same facts. While both are categorized in a similar subject matter known as theft or embezzlement of property, it has different legal and essential features. That is why C cannot raise a plea of double jeopardy, if the court agrees with the argument that the charges presuppose different legal facts.
EXCEPTIONS TO DOUBLE JEOPARDY
On the one hand, double jeopardy is one of the main principles within the criminal law that is subject to protection; yet, as it has been mentioned in the previous section it should be noted that this rule is not entirely inviolable.
- Separate Sovereigns Doctrine: The said doctrine called the separate sovereigns doctrine allows the initiation and prosecution of the same action by different sovereign entities, a state and the center for instance without jeopardizing the principle of double jeopardy. This doctrine has its foundation on the idea that different sovereigns imply different legal interests and each of them is entitled to the enforcing of its laws. For instance, a person can be charged for engaging in a specific behavior under both the state and federal legal systems because the behavior violates the two laws.
- Subsequent Discovery of New Evidence: When it comes to evidences, which were not presented to the court earlier due to some reasons, after the first trial it could be possible to petition for another trial in the following circumstances. This exception is usually sought when the called evidence is crucial in a way that details can differ the decision of the original trial. Nevertheless, such retrials are not very common and should only be decided on after strict supervision by the judiciary arm of the nation’s government for the purposes of serving justice and fairness.
- Mistrials and Appeals: If the first trial results in a mistrial this is accorded to mean that there is no legal prejudice as it can be tried again without the spirit getting into issue to do with double jeopardy. Likewise, if a conviction is quashed on appeal for legal and or other reverses, the state may be allowed to prosecute the accused anew without violating his or her rights against double jeopardy. This exception aims at availing justice especially when the first trial was conducted in a substandard manner.
- Prosecutions Under Different Legal Provisions: Where later prosecution is anchored under a different law provision or statute though from the same set of facts, then it may not attract the bar of double jeopardy. For instance, a person can be tried and acquitted on a criminal code yet he or she can be subjected to civil or administrative case for the same act. It is important especially when explaining and distinguishing between criminal, civil and/or administrative legal liability.[11]
CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY
Double jeopardy means that an offender cannot be tried twice for the same crime and it plays a critical role in preventing people from undergoing multiple prosecutions for the same crime but its application is rather nuanced. One of the most challenging issues is the identification of what constitutes the same offense as the crimes must be legally and factually the same. This avoids abuse of law but at the same time causes legal chaos in situations where various charges stem from the same behaviour. This access to protection… Some of them are the clear differentiation between prosecution and punishment, the limitation of protection, and the possibility of subsequent trials if punishment was not previously given. This is why such peculiar situations as the separate sovereign’s doctrine and retrials due to receiving new evidence, can be effective. Consequently, though certainty the principle of double jeopardy is vital in guarding against state aggression, it should not deny justice if the opportunity for successive prosecutions is legitimate. The judiciary has to consider these factors and, therefore, align itself to the new legal demands while at the same time respecting the two principles of ‘double jeopardy’ in order to achieve justice in the modern legal system.[12]
CONCLUSION
The principle which states that a person cannot be tried for the same criminal act more than once is known as double jeopardy and is an essential rule in criminal law. Derived from the Indian Constitution Article 20(2) and section 300 of CrPC, it safeguards from being prosecuted again for the same cause and being a victim of abuse by executive or any other authority for a decision made. Nevertheless, it is an important principle that requires the careful intervention of the judiciary, particularly when it comes to determining what constitutes the ‘same offence.’ There are the exceptions like the separate sovereign doctrine and the cases reacting to new evidence, nevertheless, it is a very important principle that should guide the delivery of justice. Where legal issues are in transition depending on new trends in criminal activities then the judicature has a task of containing people’s liberties while putting the culprits to justice. The continued relevance of analyse ‘double jeopardy’ shows its significance in protecting from the arbitrary utilize of state power.
[1] Indian Constitution, art. 20(2)
[2] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 300, No. 2, Acts of Parliament, 1974 (India).
[3] Prime Legal, https://primelegal.in/2022/12/17/double-jeopardy/ (Last Visited: 8th August, 2024).
[4] Indian Kanoon, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/655638/ (Last Visited: 8th August, 2024).
[5] iPleaders Blog, https://blog.ipleaders.in/section-300-crpc/#:~:text=Section%20300%20of%20Cr.,20(2)%20is%20narrow. (Last Visited: 9th August, 2024).
[6] Prime Legal, https://primelegal.in/2022/12/17/double-jeopardy/ (Last Visited: 9th August, 2024).
[7] Indian Kanoon, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1815080/ (Last Visited: 10th August, 2024).
[8] Central Vigilance Commission, https://cvc.gov.in/files/vigilance-manual-pdf/vm21ch7/vm17ch7/63,%2067.%20Venkataraman%20Vs.%20Union%20of%20India%20A.I.R.%201954,%20SC%20375-%20on%2030.03.1954.pdf (Last Visited: 10th August, 2024).
[9] Supreme Court of India, https://main.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/8371.pdf (Last Visited: 10th August, 2024).
[10] Drishti Judiciary, https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/current-affairs/application-of-double-jeopardy (Last Visited: 10th August, 2024).
[11] Vinas & Graham, PLLC, https://houstoncriminalfirm.com/what-is-double-jeopardy-and-are-there-exceptions/ (Last Visited: 11th August, 2024).
[12] Dehradun Law Review, https://www.dehradunlawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/6-The-conceptual-analysis-of-the-principle-of-double-jeopardy-and-the-protection-of-human-rights-in-criminal-justice-administration.pdf (Last Visited: 11th August, 2024).
