Q: Persons once convicted or acquitted of an offence are not to be tried for the same offence again. Explained with reference to relevant provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure. UNIT -III
Answer:
The principle that a person cannot be tried twice for the same offense is enshrined in the doctrine of "Double Jeopardy" under both Indian law and international legal systems. In India, this principle is codified under Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. Here's an explanation with relevant legal provisions:
1. Constitutional Provision (Article 20(2)):
Article 20(2) of the Constitution states:
"No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once."
This constitutional guarantee is limited to cases where:
- A person has been prosecuted and punished for the offense.
- The same individual cannot be prosecuted again for the same offense.
2. Section 300 of the CrPC:
Section 300 CrPC provides a detailed application of the double jeopardy principle in procedural law. The key points are:
(a) No second trial for the same offense:
- If a person has been tried by a competent court and either convicted or acquitted, they cannot be tried again for the same offense.
(b) Different charges for the same facts:
- If a person has been acquitted or convicted of an offense, they cannot be tried for a different offense based on the same facts, unless it is proven that the second offense is distinct and was not included in the first trial.
(c) Exceptions:
- The principle does not apply if the previous trial was:
- Before a court without jurisdiction.
- Conducted in violation of prescribed legal procedures.
(d) Example:
- If "X" is tried and acquitted for theft in a lawful trial, they cannot be retried for the same act of theft. However, if a separate fact emerges showing "X" committed robbery (which includes theft and additional elements), a new trial may be permissible.
3. Key Case Laws:
(i) Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay (1953):
- The Supreme Court clarified that Article 20(2) applies only when the person has been "prosecuted and punished" by a court of law, not by administrative or departmental proceedings.
(ii) Venkataraman v. Union of India (1954):
- It was held that a departmental inquiry followed by punishment does not amount to prosecution and punishment under Article 20(2).
(iii) Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat (2012):
- The Supreme Court reiterated that Section 300 CrPC prohibits a second trial only if the first trial was conducted by a competent court with proper jurisdiction.
4. Practical Significance:
The provision safeguards individuals from harassment due to repeated prosecutions and ensures fairness in the justice system. However, it does not extend immunity to cases where:
- New facts or evidence emerge.
- The initial trial was legally flawed or invalid.
In conclusion, the principle of double jeopardy, as codified in Article 20(2) of the Constitution and Section 300 of the CrPC, protects individuals from being prosecuted twice for the same offense by ensuring judicial fairness and adherence to legal standards.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2nd Answer:
Principle of Double Jeopardy
The principle that a person cannot be tried twice for the same offence is a fundamental right enshrined in the Indian legal framework. It is derived from the Latin maxim "nemo debet bis vexari pro eadem causa", meaning no one should be vexed twice for the same cause. This principle is rooted in Article 20(2) of the Indian Constitution and is elaborated upon in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).
Statutory Provisions under CrPC
Section 300 of CrPC
Bar against second trial for the same offence:
Section 300 of the CrPC explicitly prohibits the retrial of a person who has been tried and either convicted or acquitted for the same offence by a competent court.- Essentials:
- The accused must have been tried by a competent court.
- The trial must result in a valid conviction or acquittal.
- The subsequent proceedings must be for the same offence or facts.
- Essentials:
Exceptions:
The bar does not apply if:- The earlier acquittal or conviction is set aside by an appellate or revisional court.
- The accused faces charges under different sections for distinct offences arising from the same facts.
Illustration of Section 300
If A is tried for theft under Section 379 of IPC and acquitted, A cannot be retried for theft based on the same facts. However, A can be prosecuted for a graver offence like robbery (Section 392 IPC) if additional elements of the crime are established.
Constitutional Safeguards
Article 20(2) - Protection Against Double Jeopardy
- Provision:
Article 20(2) of the Constitution guarantees that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. - Scope:
- It applies only to offences leading to punishment under criminal law.
- Mere prosecution without punishment does not invoke Article 20(2).
- It protects individuals from multiple penalties for the same offence.
Judicial Pronouncements
Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay (1953):
The Supreme Court clarified that Article 20(2) applies only when the person is prosecuted before a "judicial tribunal." An administrative action does not qualify as a prosecution.
State of Bombay v. S.L. Apte (1961):
The Court held that the principle of double jeopardy applies only if the ingredients of the offence in the subsequent trial are identical to the first trial.
Kolla Veera Raghav Rao v. Gorantla Venkateswara Rao (2011):
The Supreme Court emphasized that Section 300 CrPC embodies the constitutional protection under Article 20(2), ensuring no one is retried for the same offence.
Relevance and Importance
The prohibition against double jeopardy:
- Ensures fair trial: Prevents the harassment of individuals by repeated prosecutions.
- Promotes judicial efficiency: Avoids redundancy in the justice system.
- Upholds finality of judgments: Protects the sanctity of court decisions.
Conclusion
The principle of double jeopardy is a cornerstone of justice and fairness. While Section 300 of the CrPC lays down specific procedural safeguards, Article 20(2) ensures constitutional protection. Together, they reinforce the idea that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done.
No comments:
Post a Comment