Doctrine of double jeopardy

The doctrine of double jeopardy is a legal principle that prevents a person from being tried or punished twice for the same offense. It's a fundamental principle of criminal law that protects people from arbitrary use of state power.

The Constitution of India's Article 20(2) states that no person can be tried or punished more than once for the same offense

Double jeopardy doesn't apply if the defendant was never tried, or if charges were dropped or put on hold but later reinstated. 

The Doctrine of Double Jeopardy, enshrined in Article 20(2) of the Indian constitution, protects an man or woman from being prosecuted or punished twice for the equal offense. the provision really states that “no character shall be prosecuted and punished for the identical offense more than as soon as.” This precept guarantees safety against retrial after acquittal or conviction.

In the case of Mr. Ravi Sharma, given that he turned into acquitted of theft charges due to lack of evidence, double jeopardy might bar any next trial for the equal offense, despite the fact that new proof emerges. The best courtroom of India, in S.A. Venkataraman v. Union of India (1954), clarified that Article 20(2) protects simplest against retrial for the identical offense after a conviction or acquittal and now not for specific fees arising from the equal information.

But the doctrine applies strictly to instances in which the accused has been “prosecuted and punished” or acquitted. As in step with phase 300 of the crook technique Code (CrPC), a person cannot be attempted once more for the identical offense after being acquitted through a equipped court docket unless the acquittal is overturned on attraction or if the initial trial turned into void because of jurisdictional errors.

In nation of Rajasthan v. Hat Singh (2003), the court docket emphasised that new proof does no longer permit a sparkling trial until the acquittal itself turned into tainted via fraud or lack of jurisdiction. therefore, in Mr. Sharma’s case, the emergence of new proof on my own does no longer justify a retrial, because the earlier acquittal remains binding, until the prosecution appeals the acquittal or proves the trial changed into mistaken.

The double jeopardy comes under the article 20(2) of the indian constitution and prohibits a person to be punished and prosecuted for the same offence twice.Article 20(2)  protects the individuals dignity and prevents harassment through the repeated harassment

In the above scenario, Ravi was cleared from chargers of theft by the competent court ,But later the prosecution attempted to reopen the court based on new evidence. An individual who tried and didn't find guilt  for the offence by the competent court can't be tried again for the same offence according to the section 300 of the code of criminal procedure 1973 ,unless the decision is reversed on appeal, revision, or retrial ordered by a higher court.

Judicial precedents have reiterated this many times.  Supreme Court decided in Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay (1953 SCR 730) that Article 20(2) is restricted to the situations when the previous proceedings were in a court that has the power to impose punishment.  In S.A. Venkataraman v. Union of India (AIR 1954 SC 375),the Court distinguished between departmental proceedings and judicial prosecution. finding that the latter is not a subject to the double jeopardy.  Significantly, the decision was made in Kolla Veera Raghav Rao v. In Gorantla Venkateswara Rao (2011), 2 SCC 703 it is stated that after acquittal is recorded, the same offence cannot be retried even after a new evidence is discovered.

Exception is only applied in cases where the first acquittal was done by fraud or collusion or when an appeal court specifically provides a retrial due to irregularities in the procedure.  It is not sufficient that new evidence shows up.  In this respect, Mr. Sharma cannot be retried on the same charge of stealing according to these criteria.  The prosecution has remedy in the form of appellate or revisional jurisdiction, as opposed to commencing a new criminal case.