Criminal Jurisprudence
Difference between double jeopardy and double punishment—Double punishment may arise when a person is convicted for two or more offences charged in one indictment however, the question of double jeopardy arises only when a second trial is sought on a subsequent indictment following a conviction or acquittal on an earlier indictment—This doctrine is certainly not a protection to the individual from peril of second sentence or punishment, nor to the service of a sentence for one offence, but is a protection against double jeopardy for the same offence that is, against a second trial for the same offence.
[Para 30]
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Section 300—Double jeopardy—Section 300 of the CrPC bars the trial of a person not only for the same offence but also for any other offence on the same facts.
[Para 25]
Section 300(1)—Applicability of—Where accused has not been tried and as such convicted or acquitted, Section 300(1) of CrPC shall not be applicable.
[Para 24]
Section 300(2)—Double jeopardy—When the charge of second trial is for a distinct offence, the trial is not barred—If a person is acquitted or convicted of any offence, he may be tried for a distinct offence for which a separate charge might have been made against him at the former trial under sub-section (1) of Section 220 of the CrPC but same is subject to a condition precedent being, that consent of the State Government is sought before such a person could be tried.
[Para 41]
Constitution of India, 1950
Article 20(2)—Double jeopardy—Provision bars a second prosecution only where accused has been both prosecuted and punished for the same offence previously—But this clause does not bar subsequent trial if the ingredients of the offences in the previous and subsequent trials are distinct.
[Para 26]
Article 20(2)—Conditions for application of clause—Explained.
Held : There are three conditions for the application of the clause. Firstly, there must have been previous proceeding before a court of law or a judicial tribunal of competent jurisdiction in which the person must have been prosecuted. The said prosecution must be valid and not null and void or abortive. Secondly, the conviction or acquittal in the previous proceeding must be in force at the time of the second proceeding in relation to the same offence and same set of facts, for which he was prosecuted and punished in the first proceeding. Thirdly, the subsequent proceeding must be a fresh proceeding, where he is, for the second time, sought to be prosecuted and punished for the same offence and same set of facts. In other words, the clause has no application when the subsequent proceeding is a mere continuation of the previous proceeding, for example, where an appeal arises out of such acquittal or conviction. In order to sustain a plea of double jeopardy, it must be shown that all the aforesaid conditions of this clause are satisfied.
Article 21—Protection of right to life and personal liberty—Protection against double jeopardy is also included under the scope of Article 21 of the Constitution of India—Prosecuting a person for the same offence in same series of facts, for which he has previously either been acquitted or has been convicted and undergone the punishment, affects the person’s right to live with dignity.
[Para 29]
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) & Section 409 of IPC—Misappropriation and falsification of accounts—Conviction—Plea of double jeopardy—Vital discrepancies and inconsistencies found in testimonies of prosecution witnesses—Present cases arises out of same set of facts and same transaction as that in the previous three cases wherein appellant was tried and convicted/acquitted respectively—Allegations/offences in the instant cases are the same as the allegations/offences in the previous three cases, therefore as per the mandate under Section 300(2) of the CrPC, the consent of State Government is necessary—No material on record to demonstrate that present cases have been initiated pursuant to the consent of State Government—It is also not brought on record that present cases is for any distinct offence for which separate charge had been made against appellant and earlier trials—High Court was not justified affirming judgment of conviction and sentence passed by Trial Court—Trial Court as well as High Court were not right in convicting and sentencing appellant—Impugned judgments are set aside—Appeals allowed.
[Para 38 to 41]
Words and Phrases
Double Jeopardy—Definition of—As per the Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th Edition, ‘double jeopardy’ is defined as “being prosecuted or sentenced twice, for substantially the same offence”—Terms ‘double jeopardy’, ‘former jeopardy’, ‘jeopardy for life or limb’, ‘jeopardy for the same offence’, ‘twice put in jeopardy of punishment’ and other similar expressions used in various Constitutions and statutes are to be construed substantially, to the same effect—Double jeopardy is used to denote the protection to an accused, that he has had a fair trial for the same offence, wherein fair trial means trial according to law and established legal procedure.
[Paras 18 & 19]
Jeopardy—Meaning of—Word ‘jeopardy’ is used to designate the danger of conviction and punishment which an accused in a criminal action incurs—‘Jeopardy’ implies an exposure to a lawful conviction for an offence for which a person has already been acquitted or convicted.
[Para 18]
Life—Meaning under Article 21 of the Constitution of India—‘Life’ under Article 21 of the Constitution is not merely the physical act of breathing—It does not connote mere animal existence or continued drudgery through life—It has a much wider connotation; it includes the right to live with human dignity.
[Para 29]
Same offence—Meaning of—Term ‘same offence’ in simple language means, where the offences are not distinct and the ingredients of the offences are identical—Where there are two distinct offences made up of different ingredients, the embargo under Article 20 of the Constitution, has no application, though the offences may have some overlapping features—Crucial requirement of Article 20 is that the offences are the same and identical in all respects,
[Para 28]
Decision : Appeals allowed