ABSTRACT.
The five principles can be just as crucial since they provide checks on how various actors in the criminal justice system use the process as a means of getting at people who are presumed to have violated the law in one way or another. As the adage ‘nemo debet bis vexari’ ‘no one should be vexed twice for the same reasons implies this doctrine helps prevent wrong doers from subjecting individuals to a series of legal Cycling. Double jeopardy prevention is well established in Article 20(2) of Indian Constitution and similar provisions in many countries of world, which prove its importance as means of justice and against the malpractices of prosecution. This paper aims to understand the theory of double jeopardy, the constitutional provision of double jeopardy, its exceptions, reasons for this provision, and various judgements and interpretations under this provision, including judgements in India and other countries. When we know about double jeopardy, we will be able to comprehend the reason behind it as well as protection of the individual liberties as well as the legal system.
Key words : Nemo debet bis vexari, liberties, Double jeopardy.
INTRODUCTION
The doctrine of double jeopardy is a fundamental legal principle, basically, it prohibits a person from being tried for the same criminal offense and or punished for the same offense. It makes sure that once a person has been discharged or condemned in a case then it cannot be repeated again this provides finality to courts and justice. This principle can be traced to almost every Constitution in the world today and also forms part of every common law jurisdiction. In India the principle of double jeopardy is provided under the provision contained in Article 20(2) of the Constitution, which provides that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. The provision represents the justice in the… This provision protects individuals against the constant prosecution by the forceful legal action of the prosecutor. It also serves the interest of maintaining public faith in law as a force by vindicating the judicial process by enforcing judges’ decisions. Double jeopardy is one of the most crucial constitutional protections which in this article will explore with relativity to its provisions and practical situation.
Constitutional Basis of Double Jeopardy in India
Article 20(2) of the Indian Constitution explicitly provides protection against double jeopardy. This provision is part of the larger constitutional framework aimed at protecting the fundamental rights of citizens. The underlying rationale for double jeopardy is to protect individuals from the agony of repeated trials and to prevent the state from exploiting its power to cause unnecessary distress to individuals.
It is important to note that Article 20(2) applies only to cases where an individual has been “prosecuted and punished” for an offense. This means that both prosecution and punishment are required for the principle to come into effect. Therefore, if a person is acquitted, they cannot be prosecuted again for the same offense, as the double jeopardy protection kicks in. However, this protection does not apply to situations where a person has only been charged but not prosecuted, as there has been no formal trial.
Landmark Judicial Interpretations
The Indian judiciary has played a significant role in interpreting and shaping the application of double jeopardy. In the case of Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay (1953), the Supreme Court clarified that the protection against double jeopardy under Article 20(2) only applies when the person has already faced a judicial punishment. In this case, the court held that proceedings before customs authorities were not considered a judicial trial, and therefore, subsequent prosecution was permissible.
Another notable case is S.A. Venkataraman v. Union of India (1954), where the Supreme Court elaborated on the requirement that a person must have been prosecuted and punished for the same offense for the double jeopardy principle to apply. The court observed that disciplinary actions taken by administrative bodies, such as dismissals from service, do not amount to “punishment” under Article 20(2), and therefore, criminal prosecution could still proceed.
Exceptions to the Principle of Double Jeopardy
While double jeopardy serves as a strong safeguard, there are certain exceptions and limitations to its application. For instance, the principle does not apply to cases where different laws are violated by the same act. If an individual’s conduct results in multiple offenses under different statutes, they may face separate prosecutions for each violation.
Additionally, the concept of “autrefois acquit” and “autrefois convict”, which means “previously acquitted” and “previously convicted,” respectively, is a common law doctrine that supports the principle of double jeopardy. However, a retrial is permissible in certain situations, such as when new and compelling evidence comes to light, or if the initial trial was found to have procedural irregularities. Moreover, if an individual commits a distinct offense arising from the same set of facts, they may be tried again.
Double Jeopardy in Other Jurisdictions
The principle of double jeopardy is not unique to India; it is a well-established doctrine in many legal systems worldwide. For example, in the United States, double jeopardy is enshrined in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, which protects individuals from being “twice put in jeopardy of life or limb” for the same offense. The U.S. Supreme Court has also established that double jeopardy protection extends to cases involving both federal and state charges, ensuring comprehensive protection for individuals.
Similarly, in the United Kingdom, the Criminal Justice Act 2003 introduced exceptions to the double jeopardy rule, allowing retrials for serious offenses if new and compelling evidence emerges. This change was prompted by public outcry in certain high-profile cases where new evidence suggested the guilt of previously acquitted individuals.
CONCLUSION
This principle of double jeopardy is such an important rule that prevents people from facing continually prosecution for the same crime. It represents the last word of justice and also serves as a protective tool to make sure the state doesn’t keenly exploit its might in consistently putting individuals through hell through circulating them round the legal system. As India’s founding fathers enshrine double jeopardy in Article 20(2) of Indian constitution, they guaranteed of legal structure that recognizes the rights of the people and the authority of the judgments. However, as there are always some exclusions and restrictions to the given principle, it is still important to pursue the goal of safeguarding people from oppression and ensuring the fairness of the legal proceedings. Because legal systems remain dynamic, the gap between delivering justice to victims and upholding the legal rights of the accused should be fairly dealt with to restore public confidence when implementing the criminal justice system. By contemplating the problems behind double jeopardy we can see the precarious line that is to be drawn in the sand between the given rights of the individuals and the needs of the society.
Reference
1. Ipleader
2. Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay, AIR 1953 SC 325
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN MY :ABHISHEK AIYAPPA
