By Vaishnavi Mishra
'There is no unanimity of opinions regarding the origin of double jeopardy principle since it is obscure in the mists of time. It is a centuries old principle, and it has been rightly observed that the history of double jeopardy is the history of criminal procedure.'
Protection from the state using certain numerous types of prosecution is provided by double jeopardy. Generally speaking, an individual cannot be prosecuted twice for the same charge based on the same conduct in nations that uphold the double jeopardy rule. The doctrine is a legal defence that, following a valid acquittal or conviction, shields the accused or defendant from being tried again for the same charges and circumstances.
The concept of double jeopardy originates from Article 20(2) of the Indian Constitution, which addresses and clarifies its definition. The Indian Constitution's framers included it in Part III as one of our fundamental rights. The criminal justice system operates under the presumption that there are some principles—like the double jeopardy principle, which upholds the system's values—where compromise is not an option.
This doctrine, which is stated in one court and seems to be a part of English common law in addition to all other systems of jurisprudence, has no particular beginning and has always existed, according to the conclusion. The Greeks and Romans were familiar with the concept of double jeopardy, which was later recognised in Justinian's Digest as the prohibition against the governor allowing the same individual to be tried and found guilty twice for the same offence. The criminal procedure was different then than it is now, with the prosecution having 30 days after an acquittal to arrest the prisoner.
There has been no discussion of the Magna Charta's double jeopardy theory, therefore it cannot be inferred. Canon law is the common basis from which the theory of double jeopardy in continental and English legal systems has been derived. Canon law declared in 847 A.D. that no one may ever be condemned again for the same sin, not even God. The Justinian Code has introduced this concept into Roman law.
Article 20 of Indian Constitution : Protection in respect of conviction for offences
The Indian Constitution Addresses protection in the event of a criminal conviction. It has to do with one of the essential liberties guaranteed by the Indian Constitution: the right to freedom. Articles 19, 20, 21A, and 22 safeguard the freedom of speech. Article 20 outlines three categories of protections for suspected offenders, making it a component of the right to freedom.
The Indian Constitution's Article 20 is composed of three clauses. These three clauses address the subject of the Legislature, Executive and implementing authorities taking unnecessary and undesirable acts, that is:
1) No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the Act charged as an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence. (Ex post facto law)
(2) No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. (Double jeopardy)
(3) No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. (Self-incrimination)
The roots of the doctrine of Double Jeopardy can be traced to the Latin maxim
'Nemo debet bis vexari'
The meaning of this maxim is that a man should not be put in peril twice for the same offence.
Section 300 of the Cr.P.C. reinforces this requirement in the criminal domain in a comparable and precise way. "Person once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for the same offence" is stated clearly in this section. The section's opening paragraph elaborates on this by saying that: 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, 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 221, or for which he might have been convicted under sub- section (2) thereof.
In T.P. Gopalakrishnan v. State of Kerala, the Hon'ble Supreme Court expounded on this clause, ruling that Section 300 Cr.P.C. prohibits not just the prosecution of an individual for the same offence but also for any other offence based on the same circumstances. In fact, the concept of double jeopardy has been acknowledged in criminal cases as well. In this case, the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court held that Indian courts or authorities may use their judicial or quasi-judicial authority to take notice of a conviction from an Indian foreign court for an offence committed in that nation. The Court did clarify, though, that although the conviction would not be legally binding on Indian courts or authorities, the judgement and order of conviction would still need to be accorded a great deal of weight.
Reasons why the double jeopardy doctrine is applicable
Legally speaking, jeopardy refers to the risk that criminal defendants face, such as jail time or fines. Double jeopardy has been recognised as a legitimate defence in three instances: The person must, first and foremost, face criminal charges. The General Clauses Act of 1897 provides a definition for the term "offence." any action or inaction that would have been illegal under the current legal system.
There must have been an inquiry or action before a court or judicial institution. The individual needed to have been detained and punished during the previous procedure. The identical offence for which he was previously found guilty and given a sentence must be committed.
Situations in which the double jeopardy theory is not applicable
The protection provided by the double jeopardy clause might not always be applicable. Due mostly to historical legal interpretations, the courts have developed some guidelines for deciding when to apply double jeopardy as a legitimate defence.
1. Civil lawsuit: The defence of double jeopardy is limited to use in criminal court; it is not applicable in civil court. The defendant cannot use the same offence he committed in criminal court as defence in a civil court. For instance, "B's family" may file a lawsuit in both civil and criminal courts if "A" killed "B" in a drunk driving case. They may file a lawsuit in civil court to get the money damages owed to "B." "A" is unable to use double jeopardy to defend himself in a civil lawsuit and avoid penalty for his offence. But in a criminal court, he could defend himself under double jeopardy.
2. Jeopardy must commence: Prior to using the double jeopardy theory, the executive authorities must place the defendant in jeopardy. This means that before using the double jeopardy theory as a defence, defendants must go through a trial. When the trial jury is sworn in, the case is put in jeopardy.
3. Jeopardy has to end: The game must start and end in the same manner. Stated differently, the matter needs to be resolved before the double jeopardy theory may be applied to keep the defendant from being detained and prosecuted for the same offence. after the sentence has been served or when the court issues an order of acquittal prior to sending the case to a jury. Jeopardy typically ends when the court issues a ruling.
Case laws regarding the doctrine of double jeopardy
Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay, 1953
Facts of the case
The petitioner in this instance, an Indian national, flew from Jeddah to Santa Cruz Airport in Bombay. When he was searched, it was found that he had carried 1250.361 grammes of gold with him, even though he had not disclosed this to the Indian government. However, the owner of the gold might choose to pay a fine of 12,000 rupees, which was to be done within four months of the order's date. A copy of the order was sent to the appellant, but nobody showed up to claim the gold. The criminal appeal court of the Supreme Court of India directed that the Bank of the Constitution hear the request since it raised the same question of "double jeopardy" or "autrefois convict."
Issues involved in the case
The issue is whether a plea of double jeopardy may be supported by the Sea Customs Act, 1878 and a court or judicial tribunal ruling.
Judgement of the Court
Because the prior imprisonment under the Sea Customs Act of 1878 did not constitute a ruling or order of a court or judicial body to support the double jeopardy claim, the prosecution under the Foreign Regulation Act of 1947 was upheld.
Kalawati v. State of Himachal Pradesh,1953
Facts of the case
To shield her from the abuse, the accused (plaintiff) in this case killed her spouse (defendant). The truth is that she had been abused by her husband and was trying to defend herself against
violence. In this case, the accused murdered her spouse in response to his intimidation. Due to insufficient evidence, she was found not guilty. But in the end, the state appealed her case to the Higher Court.
Problems pertaining to the case
The question is whether this case breaches the right to appeal under Article 20(2) of the Constitution.
Judgement of the Court
The appeal against the acquittal decision would not be subject to Article 20(2) since there was no penalty in the earlier trial, the Supreme Court said, holding that the appeal is a continuation of the prior trial rather than a new trial for the same offence. Therefore, it would not be against Article 20(2) of the Constitution to file an appeal against an acquittal ruling in a murder trial.
Conclusion
Every accused person has the right to file at least one appeal following a conviction. An acquittal occurs when the conviction is ruled unlawful on appeal for lack of evidence, and no more prosecution is permitted. True spirit of public participation and public justice. In addition, the legal systems of nations like Germany, the United Kingdom, and India show the various strategies and subtleties involved in maintaining the important double jeopardy protection and highlight the widespread acceptance of this idea as a necessary component of the pursuit of justice.Article 20(2) of the Indian Constitution addresses the notion of double jeopardy and permits departmental inquiries to be conducted prior to or subsequent to the initiation of criminal prosecution.
To sum up, the concept of double jeopardy is a fundamental component of legal systems around the globe, protecting citizens' rights and averting any misuses of governmental authority. This concept, which is based on the defence against repeated prosecutions or penalties for the same offence, is fundamental to fostering trust in government institutions and maintaining the As such, this idea is crucial to our legal system once someone has been found guilty and sentenced. Throughout the world, legal systems have adopted the notion.
The author of this article is Vaishnavi Mishra, a third-year BBALLB student at Gitarattan International Business School, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Delhi.
This article contains the view of the author and the publisher in no way associates with the views or ideologies of the author. All the moral rights vests with the Author(s).
Comments