“CrPC is more far reaching about the entire issue when contrasted with the Constitution.”
In the Indian Constitution, Article 20(2) says that “No Person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once”. This article is a fundamental right guaranteed to every person in the constitution. The doctrine of double jeopardy is based on the principle that a man should not be put in peril twice for the same offence. The Latin maxim for the same is ‘Nemo debet bis vexari’.
It is to be noted here that, this right of double jeopardy is not an additional feature added in the Constitution because this already existed in Indian jurisprudence, under Criminal Procedure Code. The guarantee against Double jeopardy could be found in Sec. 26 of the General Clauses Act and Sec.403 (1) of the Cr PC 1898. Reminiscence of this can be still found under Sec. 300 of the Cr PC, 1973. In fact Sec. 300 elaborates the principle of double jeopardy much better than does Art. 20 (2) of the Constitution. It is also widely believed that Art. 20 (2) of the Constitution only provides Parliamentary gloss over a prevalent doctrine already incorporated within the Cr PC.
From the historical point of view, it is believed that the principle of Double Jeopardy since the beginning of criminal procedure. This maxim stemmed from St Jerome’s commentary in AD 391 on the prophet Nahum: “For God Judges not twice for the same offence”. This rule was later also depicted in common pleas “autrefois convict” and “autrefois acquit”. Autrefois convict means a plea that the prisoner had already been tried for and convicted of the offence. Autrefois acquit means that the prisoner has already been tried for and acquitted of the same offence.
The concept of this principle was well explained by the decision in Connelly v Director of Public Prosecutions (UK) [1964] AC 1254 in which it was laid down that: “For the doctrine of autrefois to apply it is necessary that the accused should have been put in peril of conviction for the same offence as that which he is then charged. The word ‘offence’ embraces both the facts which constitute the crime and the legal characteristics which make it an offence. For the doctrine to apply it must be the same offence both in fact and in law.”
Under the Indian Constitution the ambit of Art. 20(2) is, however, narrower than the English or the American rule against Double Jeopardy. This article only covers the principle of autrefois convicts and it does not cover autrefois acquits. Autrefois acquit is covered under section 300 of CrPC. In the article 20(2), the word prosecution is used.
In Kalawati v. State of Himachal Pradesh a person accused of committing murder was tried and acquitted. An appeal by the state was preferred against the acquittal. It was held by the court that the accused could not plead Article 20(2) against the appeal. Hence the principles of double jeopardy do not apply to appeal. Article 20(2) does not apply when there was no punishment for the offence at the earlier prosecution.
In the case of State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan, the Supreme Court held that in order for the prohibition to apply under Article 20(2), the same act must constitute an offence under more than one Act. If there are two distinct separate offences with ingredients under two different enactments, a double punishment is not barred. In the case of State of Bombay v. S.L. Apte, the Supreme Court explained the legal position as follows: “To operate as a bar the second prosecution and the consequential punishment there under, must be for the ‘same offence’. The crucial requirement therefore, for attracting the Article is that the offences are the same, i.e., they should be identical. If, however, the two offences are distinct, then notwithstanding that the allegations of facts in the two complaints might be substantially similar, the benefit of the ban cannot be invoked. It is, therefore, necessary to analyse and compare not the allegations in the two complaints but the ingredients of the two offences and see whether their identity is made out.”
In the Cr PC, the arrangement to anticipate discipline for a similar offense twice can be found under Sec. 300. This segment of the CrPC fuses the supplications of autrefois vindicate and autrefois convict. These supplications are taken as a bar to criminal trial on the ground that the denounced individual had been once effectively charged and strove for the same asserted offense and was either cleared or sentenced.
Sec. 300 of the Cr PC has six sub-sections and six illustrations which expansively deal with the principle of Double Jeopardy.
With the end goal of Sec. 300 of the CrPC, the expression “absolution” has been clarified in negative terms by saying that the expulsion of a grumbling or the release of the blamed is not acquittal.
In the case of Krishna Sen Gupta v. Manjula Mukherjee, the brother of the aggrieved filed a complaint under Sec. 494 I.P.C. However, the accused was discharged because the complaint was not filed by the complainant. The Calcutta High Court held that a subsequent complaint by the complainant for the same offence is not barred by the principle of double jeopardy. The reason for having such an explanation is that the dismissal of a complaint or the discharge of the accused is not considered as final decision regarding the innocence of the accused person.33 However, if a court applies a wrong provision of law erroneously, it would be deemed that the order in effect, was one under the provisions of law applicable to the facts of the case.
The essential point that goes over from examining the whole segment is that lone subsection (1) manages the correct arrangement identifying with Double Jeopardy. Alternate segments are only supplementing the principle sub-area with regards to the different possibilities which may emerge in the genuine usage of the precept of Double Jeopardy.
In the wake of investigating all the different sub-segments of Sec. 300 of the Cr PC furthermore Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India which articulate the convention of Double Jeopardy, it is clear from what has been examined that the Doctrine of Double Jeopardy has been all the more obviously expounded in the CrPC (Section 300) instead of Article 20 (2) of the Indian Constitution. In any case, what likewise goes over is that individuals like to allude to the Constitution when arguing a case which is secured by Double Jeopardy than the Cr PC which unmistakably gives a superior safe watch frame being indicted twice for a similar offense. The Constitution manages the whole matter in a couple lines. In any case, these few lines have been discussed about a considerable measure and the sort of legal examination that has been gotten by this is immense. On a similar hand there is less civil argument about Double Jeopardy in the Cr PC. This is additionally expected shape the way that the CrPC is more far reaching about the entire issue when contrasted with the Constitution.