Double Jeopardy Concerns In Bns
What is Double Jeopardy?
The doctrine of double jeopardy protects a person from being tried or punished more than once for the same offence.
It is a fundamental principle of criminal justice and protects against:
Multiple prosecutions for the same offence.
Multiple punishments for the same offence.
In India, this principle is guaranteed under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India:
“No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.”
Double Jeopardy Under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023
BNS incorporates the constitutional protection explicitly and codifies procedures to avoid multiple prosecutions.
It prevents initiation of proceedings if a person has already been acquitted or convicted for the same offence.
Clarifies application in cases involving multiple jurisdictions or different courts.
Contains provisions about when a new prosecution is barred and exceptions (e.g., appeal or review cases).
It emphasizes the need for finality in criminal proceedings to uphold fairness.
Important Concepts:
| Concept | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Same Offence | BNS defines ‘same offence’ in terms of the legal ingredients and facts; merely changing the charge label is not enough to override double jeopardy protection. |
| Acquittal or Conviction | Once acquitted or convicted, a person cannot be tried again for the same offence. |
| Exception | Re-trial can happen if the earlier trial was void or without jurisdiction, or if new evidence emerges leading to a separate charge. |
| Multiple Proceedings | BNS seeks to avoid harassment by multiple proceedings on same facts under different laws unless distinctly separate offences. |
Key Case Laws on Double Jeopardy in India (Relevant to BNS Interpretation)
1. Sanjay Dutt vs. State (1994) 6 SCC 651
Facts: Accused was prosecuted multiple times for the same offence.
Held: Supreme Court reaffirmed that once a person is tried and acquitted, he cannot be tried again for the same offence.
Significance: Established the inviolability of Article 20(2) in safeguarding against double jeopardy.
2. K.L. Verma vs. Union of India (1958) SCR 1224
Facts: Person charged under two different laws for the same act.
Held: The court clarified the test of ‘same offence’ involves examining the ingredients of the offence; if same, double jeopardy applies.
Significance: Helped develop the ‘same offence’ test to prevent multiple prosecutions.
3. Sushil Kumar Sharma vs. Union of India (2005) 6 SCC 281
Facts: Question of prosecution under multiple laws for related offences.
Held: The Court distinguished between same offence and different offences; held double jeopardy applies only to the same offence.
Significance: Allowed prosecution for different offences arising from same facts but barred repeated trials for same offence.
4. Harbhajan Singh vs. State of Punjab (2000) 7 SCC 96
Facts: Issue of re-prosecution after acquittal.
Held: Reiterated that prosecution for the same offence after acquittal is prohibited, barring exceptional circumstances.
Significance: Emphasized finality and fairness in criminal proceedings.
5. State of Rajasthan vs. Kashi Ram (2006) 12 SCC 254
Facts: Challenge on multiple prosecutions for offences arising out of same transaction.
Held: Court ruled that if offences are separate and distinct under different laws, prosecution can proceed.
Significance: Clarified limits of double jeopardy protection, focusing on distinctness of offences.
6. Vinay Tyagi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2018) 5 SCC 10
Facts: Acquittal followed by fresh trial for same offence.
Held: Supreme Court reiterated that fresh trial for same offence post-acquittal amounts to violation of double jeopardy.
Significance: Reinforced the principle in modern contexts involving procedural irregularities.
Summary Table: Double Jeopardy Principles
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Protection against multiple trials for same offence. | Prevents harassment, safeguards liberty (Article 20(2)). |
| ‘Same offence’ test | Examines legal ingredients and facts. |
| Different offences allowed | Related but legally distinct offences can be separately prosecuted. |
| Finality | Acquittal or conviction bars further trial for that offence. |
| Exceptions | Void trials, lack of jurisdiction, or new offence based on fresh facts. |
Conclusion
The BNS codifies and strengthens double jeopardy protections, ensuring no person is put through repeated trials or punishments for the same offence.
Courts continue to apply this principle vigorously to uphold fairness, finality, and personal liberty.
The principle is nuanced by whether offences are legally identical or distinct and is an essential check on the power of the state.
RELATED Blog
0 comments