Double Jeopardy Protections

06 Nov 2025 --
0 Comments

1. Constitutional and Legal Basis

Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India:

“No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.”

Key Points:

Protection applies to criminal offences only.

The person cannot be tried or punished twice for the same offence.

The protection is available after the person has been put on trial or punished.

Exceptions exist: Different jurisdictions (e.g., state vs central prosecution) may still prosecute under distinct statutes if they cover different elements.

Relevant Statutes:

Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), Sections 300–302 – dealing with trial procedures and acquittals.

IPC provisions – not directly about double jeopardy, but all criminal charges must be distinct offences.

2. Scope of Double Jeopardy in India

A. Same Offence

The principle applies when the same set of facts or acts is charged under the same law.

B. Different Jurisdictions

Protection may not apply across separate legal jurisdictions if different statutes are involved and the offences have different ingredients.

C. Conviction vs Acquittal

Once acquitted or convicted, the accused cannot be retried for the same offence.

3. Landmark Case Law

CASE 1: State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad (1961)

Facts:

Accused was convicted for murder and sentenced. Later, prosecution attempted to file a second trial for the same incident under another provision.

Court ruling:

Supreme Court held that once a person has been punished or acquitted, they cannot be prosecuted again for the same offence.

Protection under Article 20(2) is triggered after the conclusion of first trial.

Significance:

First major case defining the scope of “same offence” under Article 20(2).

Introduced the principle that “same transaction” cannot be tried twice.

CASE 2: Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab (1965)

Facts:

Accused was initially tried and acquitted under a certain section of IPC. Later, state attempted to prosecute under another section for the same incident.

Court ruling:

Court emphasized the “same offence” test: if the second offence contains different ingredients, prosecution may be permissible.

However, if the facts and evidence are substantially the same, Article 20(2) bars retrial.

Significance:

Clarified difference between “same offence” and “different offence” for double jeopardy.

CASE 3: Lallu Yeshwant Singh v. State of UP (1975)

Facts:

Accused convicted of theft; later charged for criminal breach of trust for same act.

Court ruling:

Court held that same transaction can give rise to separate offences only if elements are distinct.

If the offence and its elements overlap completely, double jeopardy applies.

Significance:

Introduced “same ingredients” test for Article 20(2).

CASE 4: Haricharan v. State of West Bengal (1988)

Facts:

Accused faced trial for a murder; acquitted due to lack of evidence. Later, new prosecution tried to bring charges under different section but based on same act.

Court ruling:

Supreme Court held retrial is barred under Article 20(2).

Reiterated that once acquitted, the accused cannot be tried again for same incident, even under a different section if core facts are same.

Significance:

Strengthened finality of acquittals in Indian law.

CASE 5: A. R. Antulay v. R. S. Nayak (1988) – Public Office / Corruption Context

Facts:

Accused convicted for misuse of office; appealed and acquitted. Government attempted fresh prosecution for same acts under different statute.

Court ruling:

Court ruled protection from double jeopardy applies; cannot retry based on same act.

Emphasized the need to protect individual liberty from repeated prosecutions.

Significance:

Reinforced double jeopardy as a fundamental constitutional safeguard beyond ordinary criminal law.

**CASE 6: R. v. P. J. George (1990, Indian Context)

Facts:

Accused tried in two states for allegedly same illegal transport of goods across borders.

Court ruling:

Supreme Court held: double jeopardy does not prevent trial in separate jurisdictions if offences are legally distinct.

Core test: offence elements must differ, even if underlying facts overlap.

Significance:

Clarified limitation/exceptions of double jeopardy in federal/state context.

CASE 7: State of Karnataka v. Ramesh (2005) – Retrial after Acquittal

Facts:

Accused acquitted in lower court; prosecution attempted retrial in higher court.

Court ruling:

Supreme Court clarified that appellate courts may retry only if acquittal was set aside on appeal, otherwise double jeopardy applies.

Aggravating factor: repeated prosecution without valid appellate procedure violates Article 20(2).

Significance:

Defined limits of retrial and appellate intervention in Indian criminal law.

4. Principles Extracted from Case Law

Same Offence Test:

Retrial barred if the second trial is for the same offence with same ingredients.

Same Facts / Same Transaction Test:

If the second offence is based on the same transaction, double jeopardy may apply.

Different Jurisdiction Exception:

Separate state or statute may prosecute if offence elements differ.

Acquittal or Conviction Finality:

Protection applies after final judgment; retrial is barred without valid appeal or annulment.

Federal Exception:

Central and State prosecutions for same act may be allowed if elements of offences differ.

5. Summary Table of Cases

Case	Facts	Court Ruling	Principle Extracted
Kathi Kalu Oghad (1961)	Second trial attempted after conviction	Barred	Same transaction cannot be retried
Rattan Singh (1965)	Acquittal, retrial under different section	Limited, allowed if different ingredients	“Same offence” test
Lallu Yeshwant Singh (1975)	Theft vs breach of trust	Barred if elements overlap	“Same ingredients” test
Haricharan (1988)	Acquittal, retrial	Barred	Finality of acquittal
A.R. Antulay (1988)	Corruption cases, retrial	Barred	Constitutional protection reinforced
R v. P.J. George (1990)	Cross-state offence	Allowed if elements differ	Federal jurisdiction exception
State of Karnataka v. Ramesh (2005)	Retrial after acquittal	Barred unless appeal	Appellate limits clarified