Doctrine of Double Jeopardy and its Essentials
Doctrine of Double Jeopardy and its Essentials : In this article we will learn the meaning of Double Jeopardy, its essentials when it is applicable and when its not applicable with case laws.
Meaning of Doctrine of Double Jeopardy and its essentials
The doctrine of double jeopardy in the Indian Constitution, enshrined in Article 20(2), The doctrine of double jeopardy is a legal defence that protects an accused/defendant from being tried again for the same accusations and facts after a lawful acquittal or conviction.
Text of Article 20(2)
“No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once”.
Article 20(2) states that no one could be convicted and punished more than once for the same offence involving the same set of facts. In essence, it guarantees against the multiple convictions of a person for the same offence in the same set of facts.
This provision derives from the Latin maxim “nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa” which means, “No one ought to be vexed twice for the same offence.” This maxim embodies the protection against double jeopardy. The clause enacts the well known principle of Jurisprudence that“No person shall be put in Jeopardy twice for the same offence.”
Doctrine of Double Jeopardy and its essentials
The protection under Article 20(2) would be available only if the following essentials are fulfilled:
1. The person must be accused of an offence
First essential condition is that the person must be accused of an offence. Section 26 of General clause Act provides that an offence means any act or omission made punishable by any law for the time boring in force. To be noted that Doctrine of Double Jeopardy only applies to criminal offences and not to civil liabilities, tax assessments, or departmental proceedings.
2. The person must have been prosecuted before a court or a judicial tribunal
The second essential is that the person must have been prosecuted before a court of law or a judicial tribunal competent to try and punish the offence. Proceedings before administrative or departmental authorities (like disciplinary actions, confiscation, suspension, or penalties by customs officials) do not amount to prosecution under Article 20(2). Only a judicial trial that ends in conviction or acquittal is recognized for the protection against double jeopardy.
Example: If a person is caught smuggling gold, and the Customs Authority confiscates the gold and imposes a penalty, this is not considered a “prosecution” by a court. Later, if he is tried in a criminal court under the Customs Act for the same act, it will not amount to double jeopardy because the first action was administrative, not judicial.
But if the same person is convicted and punished by a criminal court, he cannot be tried and punished again for the same offence in another criminal proceeding.
Case law: Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay (1953)
3. He must have been punished after his prosecution before a court or a judicial tribunal
The protection of Article 20(2) would be available only when the accused has been not only prosecuted but also punished after the prosecution. Therefore, if there is no punishment for the offence the Article 20(2) would have no application.
Both prosecution and punishment must co-exist for the operation of Article 20(2), thus it follows that where a person having been prosecuted for an offence is acquitted he can be prosecuted for the same offence again.
Even though Article 20(2) does not provide protection against a second trial after acquittal, the safeguard is ensured under Section 300 of the CrPC. According to Section 300(1), “A person who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall not be liable to be tried again for the same offence.”
Thus, in practice, while Article 20(2) protects only against double punishment after conviction, Section 300 CrPC (337 of BNSS) extends this protection to acquittals as well, ensuring that no person is harassed by repeated trials for the same offence.
4. The person must be prosecuted for the 2nd time before a court or a judicial decision
For Article 20(2) to apply, the person must be prosecuted and punished twice for the same offence by a court of law or a judicial authority. Article 20(2) has no application where the subsequent proceeding is merely a continuation of the previous, as is the case of an appeal against acquittal or an appeal against conviction.
The second prosecution must be for the identical offence. If the facts give rise to different offences under different laws, a separate trial is possible and the second proceeding must be a judicial prosecution before a court/tribunal; actions by administrative bodies (like penalties or confiscation) don’t count.
5. The offence in the subsequent prosecution must be the same as the earlier one
The rule of double jeopardy means a person cannot be prosecuted and punished twice for the same offence. For this protection to apply, the second prosecution must relate to the very same offence for which the accused has already been tried and either convicted or acquitted. If the subsequent prosecution is for a different offence, even if it arises out of the same facts, Article 20(2) does not apply.
Case law: Leo Roy Frey v. Superintendent of District Jail
Example: If a person is tried and punished for theft, they cannot be prosecuted again for the same theft.
However, if in the course of committing theft the person also assaults someone, then assault being a distinct offence, a separate trial for assault may still be permitted.
When Doctrine of Double Jeopardy is not applicable
Double jeopardy protects people from repeat trials, but there are some exceptions. ndian courts have clarified when it applies and when it doesn’t. Key exceptions include:
1. Retrial in a Higher Court on Appeal
When a case moves from a lower court to a higher court on appeal, the proceedings are viewed as a continuation of the original trial rather than a fresh prosecution. In such circumstances, the double jeopardy defence cannot be invoked, as the appellate review does not constitute a separate trial.
2. Civil and criminal proceedings together
A person can face both civil damages and criminal punishment for the same act. Double jeopardy is a defence that can only be used in criminal court and cannot be used in civil court. The defendant cannot defend himself against punishment in civil court for the same crime committed in criminal court.
Example: If ‘A’ steals jewellery from ‘B’, the State can prosecute ‘A’ in criminal court for theft. At the same time, ‘B’ can file a civil suit to recover the value of the jewellery. In the civil case, ‘A’ cannot claim double jeopardy as a defence. But if ‘A’ is prosecuted twice in criminal courts for the same theft, he can use double jeopardy.
3. Departmental/Administrative Proceedings
Article 20(2) doesn’t cover departmental/administrative actions like dismissal from service or confiscation of goods, since they are not judicial prosecutions. A criminal trial can still follow without violating double jeopardy.
