Has it ever happened that in your childhood, you broke a showpiece since you were jumping around? Your mother saw you and beat you right away. On the other hand, when your father came to know, he yelled again and banned any chocolates for a week. For a one-time mistake, you got punished multiple times. Now imagine you are tried for an offence and get acquitted. Will it be final or can you be prosecuted again for the same offence?
Obviously, it seems to be unjust to be prosecuted again and again for the same offence. So, a question arises, is there any law which protects a person from being prosecuted again once tried for the particular offence? The answer is Yes!! Here, the rule regarding double jeopardy comes into play.
Meaning of Double Jeopardy
The concept of “double jeopardy” comes from ancient Roman Law. It is based on the Latin legal maxim “Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa” which means no one ought to be vexed twice for the same cause.
Double Jeopardy in Indian Law
The word double jeopardy has not been expressly mentioned or defined in the Indian law. However, Article 20(2) of the Indian Constitution, 1950 as well as Section 337 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) (formerly Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) lay about the concept of double jeopardy.
Article 20(2) of the Indian Constitution
Article 20(2) of the Indian Constitution reads as under:
“No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.”
The provision has been incorporated in Part 3 of the Constitution of India which makes it a fundamental right for all. The fundamental right against double jeopardy extends to citizens and non-citizens due to the express use of words “No one”.
Section 337 of BNSS
Section 337 of BNSS lays that a “Person once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for same offence.”
The main part of the provision for double jeopardy under Section 337(1) of BNSS reads as under:
- “A person who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made under sub-section (1) of section 244, or for which he might have been convicted under sub-section (2) thereof.”
- Section 337(2) specifies a variety of scenarios wherein protection against double jeopardy may be excepted.
Also analyse the rule of self incrimination under Article 20
Scope of Double Jeopardy
The scope of the law on double jeopardy can be understood through offences on which double jeopardy applies:
- Primarily the protection of double jeopardy applies on criminal proceedings.
- It excludes civil and administrative proceedings from its ambit.
Double Jeopardy Examples
- Imagine that a person is tried for the offence of theft and acquitted. Then, he cannot be prosecuted for the same theft again.
- If a person is tried for the offence of theft and convicted, then too he cannot be prosecuted for the same theft again.
Exceptions to the Rule of Double Jeopardy
There are laws which are absolute. Then there are legal protections which do not apply in absolute manner but have some exceptions connected. So is the case with protection against double jeopardy. Any person accused of a crime may be tried for more than one offence if there is more than one head of charges in the same transaction.
Example- A person commits theft as well as grievous hurt then he could be tried for both the offences collectively or separately.
Case laws on Double Jeopardy
Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay (1953)
This one is a landmark judgment on double jeopardy. This case primarily addresses the interpretation of Article 20(2) of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees protection against double jeopardy.
The Supreme Court of India held that the confiscation of gold by customs authorities under the Sea Customs Act did not constitute “prosecution” or “punishment” for an offense. This allowed a subsequent prosecution under FERA, without violating the protection against double jeopardy under Article 20(2).
Kalawati v. State of Himachal Pradesh (1953)
In this case, the accused was acquitted in a trial of murder case but an appeal was preferred against his acquittal. The Apex court held that the appeal constituted a continuation of the initial trial rather than a new prosecution. Therefore, the defence of double jeopardy under Article 20(2) was not invoked.
Conclusion
Double jeopardy is a protection for individuals against the never ending prosecution. An appeal is not a fresh trial; rather, it is the continuation of an existing trial. Hence, the protection of double jeopardy is only for prosecution against the same person for the same offence for which he has been once acquitted or convicted.
The concept of double jeopardy law in India has been simplified by our intern, Ms. Shabnam. She has joined to assist Team Lawgical Shots for bringing quality information for our readers.
