Introduction :
The most crucial part of criminal law is punishment, as it determines the fate of the accused for their wrongful act. The judiciary's intention is not to unnecessarily punish them and make their life more difficult but rather to work on their rehabilitation. Double jeopardy is one of the most controversial topics as it says, "No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once" and "Person once convicted or acquitted not to be tried for the same offence."
It is defined in Indian Constitution under Part III, Article 20(2) of the Constitution and Section 300 of CrPC,1973. Double jeopardy is when a person faces punishment for the same offence twice.
Background :
The Latin maxim Nemo Debet bis Vexari is the source of the concept of double jeopardy. This maxim declares, "No one should be prosecuted twice in respect to the same matter."
This law had existed in India for a long time, long before our constitution was adopted. Both Section 26 of the General Clause Act and Section 403(1) of the CrPC,1898 refer to it.
Significance :
If the offences and facts of the second trial differ from those of the first, a person might be prosecuted again.
In this context, prosecution refers to the commencement of criminal proceedings before a court of law or a judicial body. As a result, the court excludes departmental and administrative bodies from this rule of double jeopardy and only considers procedures brought before judicial courts and tribunals.
An investigation or enquiry does not result in a criminal prosecution; thus, if a person is later taken to court, the principle of Double Jeopardy does not apply.
The law of double jeopardy will not apply if the offences are separate. A second prosecution is not prohibited if it is not the same offence.
Limitations :
Regardless of whether an accused person was found innocent or guilty in the first trial, under the American and British Constitutions, the second prosecution for the same crime is protected from double jeopardy. However, under Article 20(2), the defense against double punishment is only available when the accused has already been "prosecuted" and "punished" for the same offence, and a second prosecution is requested.
The phrase "prosecution" consequently limits the extent of the protection provided by Article 20 clause (1). Suppose there is no penalty for the offence due to the prosecution. In that case, clause (2) of Article 20 does not apply. An appeal against acquittal, if authorized by the procedure, is essentially a continuation of the prosecution.
It should also be highlighted that Article 20(2) of the Indian Constitution does not apply to a continuing offence.
The double jeopardy defense is only admissible in criminal court, not civil court.
According to this principle, defendants must go through a trial before they may use the double jeopardy defense.
Conclusion :
This doctrine is crucial to our legal system after someone has been found guilty and sentenced because it protects the rights of everyone who has previously been cleared or found guilty in multiple prosecutions. It serves to shield people from receiving numerous sentences for the same offence. It is also necessary to shield people from the potential emotional, social, and financial losses resulting from such multiple prosecutions. The aim is to safeguard and regulate the abuse of the authority provided to criminal administration while maintaining the integrity of the criminal justice system.
Comments