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.
