1. Mr. Ravi Sharma was acquitted of theft charges in a criminal court due to lack of evidence. A year later, new evidence emerged, clearly implicating him in the crime. The prosecution sought to reopen the case and bring Mr. Sharma to trial again for the same offense. Mr. Sharma's lawyer argued that the Doctrine of Double Jeopardy, enshrined in Article 20 of the Indian Constitution, protects him from being tried for the same offense twice. However, the prosecution contended that the new evidence fundamentally changed the circumstances, justifying a retrial. what will be the legal implications of the Doctrine of Double Jeopardy in this scenario. Under what conditions, if any, can a person be retried for the same offense?
