S. 300 CrPC Bars The Trial Of A Person Not Only For The Same Offence But Also For Any Other Offence On The Same...
Section 300 CrPC: Bar of Double Jeopardy and Protection from Multiple Trials
Text of Section 300 CrPC (Summary)
Section 300(1): No person shall be liable to be tried and punished again for an offence for which they have already been tried and convicted or acquitted.
Section 300(2): The bar applies not only to the same offence but also extends to any other offence for which a different charge might have been made on the same facts.
Explanation:
Purpose of Section 300 CrPC
To protect an individual from being tried repeatedly for the same act or transaction.
This is a fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence known as “double jeopardy”.
It ensures finality in litigation and protects the accused from harassment and oppression.
Scope of Section 300(2) CrPC
The section bars trial not only for the offence previously tried but also for any other offence that could have been charged based on the same facts or transaction.
This means if a person was tried and acquitted/convicted for an offence arising out of certain facts, they cannot be prosecuted again for another offence arising from the same facts, even if the offence is different.
“Same Offence” vs. “Other Offence” on Same Facts
The law recognizes that one transaction can constitute multiple offences (e.g., theft and criminal breach of trust).
Section 300(2) prevents splitting of prosecution for the same transaction into multiple trials.
This stops the state from dividing one transaction into several offences to harass the accused.
Judicial Interpretation and Case Laws:
1. K.K Verma v. Union of India (1979), Supreme Court
The Supreme Court emphasized that Section 300 bars a subsequent trial for the same offence or for any other offence based on the same facts.
It interpreted the section as a bar on multiplicity of trials.
2. State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996), Supreme Court
The Court clarified that the bar under Section 300 applies not only to the offence previously tried but also to any offence that arises out of the same facts.
It protects the accused from harassment due to multiple trials on the same facts.
3. Chintamanrao v. State of Maharashtra (1969), Supreme Court
The court held that Section 300 bars prosecution in respect of any offence that could have been charged at the time of the first trial.
The accused cannot be tried again on charges based on the same facts.
4. Harihar and Ors. v. State of Bihar (1967), Patna High Court
The Court held that once an accused is acquitted or convicted on a set of facts, no further prosecution should be allowed on the same facts for a different offence.
This prevents vexatious litigation.
5. Kesar Singh v. State of Bihar (1973), Supreme Court
This case affirmed that double jeopardy applies even when the offences are not identical but arise out of the same facts or transaction.
Practical Illustrations:
If a person is tried and acquitted of murder for an incident, the State cannot subsequently prosecute them for culpable homicide not amounting to murder or attempt to murder arising from the same incident.
If a person is tried for theft, they cannot later be tried for criminal breach of trust or receiving stolen property arising from the same transaction.
Summary Table
| Aspect | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Protection under Section 300(1) | No trial or punishment twice for the same offence (double jeopardy). |
| Extension under Section 300(2) | Bar on trial for any other offence based on the same facts/transaction. |
| Purpose | Prevent harassment, oppression, and multiplicity of trials. |
| Applies to | Same offence and any other offence based on same facts. |
| Key Cases | K.K Verma, Gurmit Singh, Chintamanrao, Harihar, Kesar Singh. |
Conclusion:
Section 300 CrPC safeguards the accused against multiple trials arising from the same facts or transaction, whether for the same offence or different offences. This principle upholds fairness, finality, and judicial economy, preventing the state from misusing its power to harass an accused through repeated prosecutions.
RELATED Blog
0 comments