CrPC Section 300 - Not To Be Tried For Same Offence

Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is an important provision in the Indian criminal justice system. This provision talks at length about the legal principle of double jeopardy. This provision makes it certain that no person is punished or prosecuted twice for a crime that he committed. In simple terms, one person cannot be punished twice for the same offense. It is a fundamental rights that has been enshrined in the Article 20(2) of the Indian Constitution.

This article explores the relevance of protecting the right of the individual in our criminal justice system and the intricacies of Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Legal Provisions Of CrPC Section 300

“Section 300- Person Once Convicted Or Acquitted Not To Be Tried For Same Offence -

1. A person who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made under Sub-Section (1) of section 221, or for which he might have been convicted under Sub-Section (2) thereof.
2. A person acquitted or convicted of any offence may be afterwards tried, with the consent of the State Government for any distinct offence for which a separate charge might have been made against him at the former trial under Sub-Section (1) of section 220.
3. A person convicted of any offence constituted by any act causing consequences which, together with such act, constituted a different offence from that of which he was convicted, may be afterwards tried for such last-mentioned offence, if the consequences had not happened or were not known to the Court to have happened, at the time when he was convicted.
4. A person acquitted or convicted of any offence constituted by any acts may, notwithstanding such acquittal or conviction be subsequently charged with, and tried for, any other offence constituted by the same acts which he may have committed if the Court by which he was first tried was not competent to try the offence with which he is subsequently charged.
5. A person discharged under section 258 shall not be tried again for the same offence except with the consent of the Court by which he was discharged or of any other Court to which the first-mentioned Court is subordinate.
6. Nothing in this section shall affect the provisions of section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897) or of section 188 of this Code.

Key Provisions Of Section 300

Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be categorised into various subsections that shed light on the ambit and the application of the principle of double jeopardy. The legal intent behind this principle is to avoid the occurrence of multiple prosecution for an offence that an individual has committed. This helps in ensuring that the law does not do injustice to the accused.

Subsection (1): Prohibition Of Second Trial For The Same Offence

Sub-section 1 of the Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a primary clause which states that when a person or an individual has been acquitted or sentenced for an offence, that individual cannot be prosecuted again for the same offence. It is important to note that this subsection is applicable only where an individual has been subjected to complete trial and the judgement has been pronounced by the Court.

The limit has been placed on the second trial to protect the individual from the arbitrary use of power by the state to prosecute the individual.

Subsection (2): Trial On Distinct Offences

Section 300(2) acts as the exception to the general rule present in the provision. This exception states that if the judgement rendered by the court does not contain or refer to any separate offence that have come to the attention from the same facts, the person may be prosecuted for those separate offences independently. This is especially applicable when in any case the proof of a distinct crime comes up at a later stage or when the initial trial has only covered a few charges.

For example, an individual is exonerated for theft but at a later stage, it is discovered that they participated in forgery at the same time. In this case, since facts remain same, a second trial can be initiated for the forgery against the individual.

Subsection (3): Reversal Of Acquittal

When an individual has been absolved of all charges by court having the competency, but the acquittal is reversed at a later stage, this sub-section makes way for retrial. It simply means that the lawmakers have allowed for retrial in circumstances where the previous decision given by the competent court has been overturned by a higher court.

Subsection (4): Charges For Consequences Of The Offence

Section 300(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure permits for a new trial when it is seen that the effect of the original offence gave way to serious outcome. For example, an trial was going agaisnt an individual for grievous hurt and after a point, victim did not recover from his injuries and passed away. After the victim’s death, a new trial can begin against the accused for culpable homicide or murder.

Subsection (5): Other Jurisdictions

When a person has been absolved or sentenced in accordance with the laws of one place (considered a foreign court), that person cannot be retried in India for that same offence. However, it must be noted that the exoneration or conviction of the accused was on the basis of facts important to establish the same offence. This clause is applicable only when India shares reciprocal arrangements with any jurisdiction outside India under international conventions or treaties.

Principle Of Double Jeopardy In Article 20(2) Of The Indian Constitution

Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is an outcome or an offshoot of a legal principle having wide ambit — double jeopardy. This principle finds its place in the Indian Constitution, enshrined in Article 20(2), a fundamental right. The Article 20(2) states that "no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once." It can be understood that Article 20(2) safeguards individuals from more than one sentence for the same offence. However, section 300 takes a step further and protects a person from more than one trial as well.

It must not be overlooked that the constitutional guarantee mentioned under Article 20(2) is applicable only when an individual has been prosecuted and punished for a crime. Therefore, if an individual is exonerated and the trial does not lead to his conviction, aforementioned constitutional guarantee cannot be applied. Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure extends the protection given to an individual by limiting subsequent trials irrespective of his acquittal or conviction.

Exceptions To Section 300

While Section 300 safeguards the individual from multiple prosecutions, certain exceptions exist in the Indian regulatory framework that make way for retrials or additional prosecution in particular scenarios:

1. Separate Offences: When an individual commits several offences but the facts are same for all those offences and the trial deals with only one offence, the individual can be tried for other offenses.
2. Reversal of Acquittal: If an individual has been acquitted by the competent court, but the higher court reverses the acquittal in an appeal, the individual can be subjected to new trial for that same offence.
3. Consequences of Offences: In a case where the earlier trial dealt with a offence that led to a serious outcome such as in grave injury that caused death, the indiivudal can be prosecuted for a serious offence depending on the new developments in the case.
4. Different Jurisdiction: Section 300(5) does provide protection from retrials for crimes that are already been settled in foreign courts. However, this protection is restricted to matters that have identical facts and the same legal outcome. When such reciprocity does not prevail, the trial can be initiated agaisnt the concerned individual in India as well.

Case Laws On CrPC Section 300

Sangeeta Ben Mahendra Bhai Patel v. State of Gujarat & Anr. (2011)

In this case, the Supreme Court of India examined the scope and application of Section 300 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which embodies the doctrine of double jeopardy. The Court began by outlining the relevant legal framework, noting that the rule against double jeopardy is enshrined in Section 300 CrPC, Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, and Section 71 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The Court then reviewed a series of precedents that had considered the application of double jeopardy in various contexts. Drawing on these cases, the Court reiterated the established principle that to attract the protection of double jeopardy, the ingredients of the offences in the earlier and later cases must be the same. The mere fact that the allegations of fact in two complaints are similar is not sufficient to invoke double jeopardy if the two offences charged are distinct. The Court further clarified that the test for determining whether two offences are the same is not the identity of the allegations, but the identity of the ingredients of the offences. Motive, while potentially relevant in establishing guilt, is not considered an ingredient of an offence.

Applying these principles to the facts before it, the Court found that the ingredients of the offences under Sections 406/420 read with Section 114 IPC are different from those of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In particular, the Court noted that mens rea (fraudulent or dishonest intention) is not required to be proven for an offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, but may be a relevant element for offences under the IPC. Consequently, the Court held that the appellant’s prosecution under the IPC was not barred by Section 300 CrPC, as it did not constitute being tried twice for the same offence.

The Court's decision in this matter underscores the importance of carefully analysing the ingredients of offences when assessing whether the principle of double jeopardy applies. The judgement clarifies that even where there is significant overlap in the factual circumstances, subsequent prosecution is permissible if the offences charged have distinct legal elements.

Purpose And Significance Of CrPC Section 300

The idea of double jeopardy is enshrined in Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which guarantees that no one is prosecuted or punished more than once for the same offence. Its key goals are:

1. Preventing Repeated Trials: It ensures justice, prevents needless harassment, and shields people from being tried more than once for the same offence.
2. Ensuring Judicial Finality: The integrity of court rulings is maintained since the verdict is regarded as final once a person is declared guilty or acquitted.
3. Protecting Against State Abuse: It protects individuals from frequent prosecutions and stops prosecutors from abusing the power they have.

Conclusion

Double jeopardy is protected by Section 300 of the CrPC, which makes sure that people aren't harassed or unfairly prosecuted for the same crime more than once. It encourages judicial efficiency and fairness by outlawing multiple trials for the same offence, which stops the state from misusing its prosecutorial powers. There are exceptions, but they are designed to strike a balance between the rights of individuals and the need to ensure that justice is done in the face of new information or situations.

This clause, along with Article 20(2) of the Constitution, is essential to the functioning of the Indian legal system since it protects people from persistent legal harassment and highlights the significance of finality in criminal prosecutions.