Section 300 CrPC Bars The Trial Of A Person Not Only For The Same Offence But Also For Any Other Offence On The...
Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) bars the trial of a person not only for the same offence but also for any other offence on the same facts or substantially the same facts, along with relevant case law
Introduction
Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is the statutory embodiment of the principle of protection against double jeopardy.
The provision ensures that no person is twice put in jeopardy for the same offence.
It prohibits retrial or prosecution for the same offence after an earlier acquittal or conviction.
Text of Section 300 CrPC
“No person shall be liable to be tried or punished again for an offence for which he has already been tried and—
(i) convicted; or
(ii) acquitted.”
This is subject to exceptions not relevant here.
Scope of Section 300 CrPC: Beyond Same Offence
The principle protects against multiple trials for the same offence.
Judicial interpretation has extended this protection to trials for different offences based on the same facts or substantially the same facts.
This prevents harassment and oppression by repetitive prosecutions.
Judicial Interpretation and Case Laws
1. State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram, AIR 2006 SC 1441
The Supreme Court held that the bar under Section 300 CrPC extends beyond the ‘same offence’ to include other offences arising from the same facts.
It prevents a person from being harassed by multiple trials based on the same incident.
2. Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani, AIR 1978 SC 1025
The Court interpreted the principle of double jeopardy as protecting not just the exact same charge but any charge based on substantially the same facts.
This interpretation safeguards the accused from multiplicity of proceedings.
3. Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal, (1994) 2 SCC 220
The Court reiterated that once a person is tried and acquitted or convicted for an offence, he cannot be subjected to a trial for another offence arising out of the same transaction.
This maintains finality and fairness in criminal justice.
4. Bhim Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1959 SC 30
This case clarified the fundamental nature of protection against double jeopardy.
Protection applies to any subsequent proceedings relating to the same cause or incident.
5. Chaman Lal v. Union of India, AIR 1956 SC 575
The Court held that the phrase ‘same offence’ should be given a broad and liberal interpretation to prevent abuse of the law through multiple prosecutions.
Principles Emanating from These Judgments
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Protection against multiple trials | No retrial after acquittal or conviction |
| Extension beyond identical offence | Bar applies to any offence arising from same facts |
| Substantially same facts | Even if offence differs in name or form, bar applies |
| Finality and fairness | Ensures closure and prevents harassment |
| Exceptions | Special statutory provisions may override this |
Practical Illustrations
If a person is acquitted of murder charge based on a particular incident, he cannot be retried for culpable homicide or causing death by negligence arising from the same incident.
Trial for theft based on same facts as a previously acquitted offence of criminal trespass is barred.
No fresh trial for attempt to murder after acquittal in a related charge arising out of same facts.
Conclusion
Section 300 CrPC protects individuals from multiple prosecutions not only for the same offence but also for any other offence arising out of the same or substantially the same facts. This principle is crucial for ensuring fairness, finality, and preventing abuse of the criminal justice system.
RELATED Blog
0 comments