Doctrine of Autrefois Acquit and Autrefois Convict: Double Jeopardy Protections in Law

The article 'Doctrine of Autrefois Acquit and Autrefois Convict: Double Jeopardy Protections in Law' emphasizes the crucial role of the doctrine of "Autrefois Acquit" and "Autrefois Convict" in upholding the principles of fairness and preventing potential abuse of the legal system. The doctrine of "Autrefois Acquit" and "Autrefois Convict" is a fundamental aspect of double jeopardy protections in law, designed to safeguard individuals from being subjected to multiple trials for the same offence.

.This article aims to analyse the concept of double jeopardy along with relevant provisions and case laws.

Introduction

There has been a significant period of existence of the concept of double jeopardy. The concept of dual jeopardy stipulates that a person shall not be tried more than one time for an identical offence. Protection against the concept of double jeopardy has been substantiated in many countries such as U.S., Mexico, India etc. Article 20(2) of the Indian Constitution serves as the provision concerning protection against double jeopardy. The Provision of Section 300 contained under the Code of Criminal Procedure also briefly enumerates this concept. It is important to note that the purview or scope of this concept is comparatively broader than how it is defined in other countries.

Definitions of Autrefois Convict and Autrefois Acquit

The terms “Autrefois Convict” & “Autrefois Acquit” implies the meaning “Previously Convicted” and “Previously Acquitted”. Common laws have served as a foundation behind the evolution of these terms as they have been used in criminal trials. So as the terms imply, the word “Autrefois Acquit” means a person shall not be put on trial for a crime under which he/she had been already set free or acquitted. As per the doctrine of “Autrefois Convict” a person shall not be put on trial for the same crime for which he was already sentenced to imprisonment or convicted. These two terms combinedly acted as the driving force behind the concept of double jeopardy. To put it simply, as per the concept of double jeopardy, a person shall not be put on trial for an identical or the same crime for which he/she has been already punished or set free.

Incorporation Within Indian Constitution 

Surprisingly, in the form of a provision against the concept of double jeopardy, the constitution of India only enshrines the concept of “Autrefois Convict” & has left out the other one. As per the provision of Article 20(1) contained in the Indian Constitution, adequate protection is provided for conviction. The double jeopardy principle is dealt with in Article 20(2) according to which a person shall not be convicted multiple times for the same crime. This particular provision which deals with the concept of double jeopardy has been adopted from the US Constitution but on the other hand, contrastingly, the U.S constitution enshrines the provisions of both the doctrines i.e., both acquittal as well as conviction. It is important to note that protection can be invoked under Article 20(2) provided that the accused has been punished as well as prosecuted for the offence.

In the case of Leo Roy v. Superintendent District Jail, 1958 AIR 119, the honourable court has laid down that in case the crimes are contrasting in nature, the concept of double jeopardy cannot be invoked and doesn’t have any application. In this case, the conviction was granted as per the provisions of the Sea Customs Act after which the accused was punished under IPC. Here, the plea of double jeopardy was not considered.

In the landmark case of Venkataraman v. Union of India,1954 AIR 375, by the Public Service Inquiry Act of 1960, relying on certain findings, an inquiry was carried out on the applicant before the inquiry commissioner. After the completion of the proceedings, the appellant was subsequently tried for the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and Indian Penal Code respectively. The Court opined that the conduct of inquiry cannot be treated as a sufficient ground for admission of a plea of double jeopardy and therefore, the prosecution under the above-mentioned acts shall not be barred by it.

Applicability of  the Concept of Autrefois Convict and Autrefois Acquit in the Context of the Code of Criminal Procedure

Unlike the Indian Constitution, the CrPC contains detailed provisions dealing with the concept of double jeopardy as under this both doctrines are mentioned. The Provision of Article 20(2) contained under the Indian Constitution merely gives an overview of the concept of double jeopardy. The provision of Section 300 contained under the Code of Criminal Procedure read as follows:

Section 300(1)- This provision explicitly mentions that no person shall be tried for the same crime multiple times. However, it lays down a few requirements that need to be fulfilled to invoke this clause

1. An acquittal or conviction must have been committed

2. The trial must have been conducted in a court with competent jurisdiction

3. The offences which are alleged to have been committed must be either identical or similar to each other

4. If multiple offences are drawn out of a particular set of facts, then a conviction executed shall remain as a restriction to the trial proceedings for subsequent crimes protracted from the relevant facts.

Section 300(2)- As per this provision, if a person is punished or set free under an offence & later it was found that the person shall be charged further but not included during the trial proceedings then the person shall not be charged and tried for the same. This particular clause acts as a safeguarding mechanism by restricting the prosecution to invoke new charges.

Let’s take an example for understanding the same. If 2 persons combinedly commit the offence of robbery, and later if it was found that they had committed the offence of culpable homicide as well then in it lays down restrictions on the system from trying those persons separately for two different offences.

Section 300(3)- This provision provides that a person may be put on trial again for the crime which is made out of identical facts and provided that the nature & scope of the crime is dissimilar. Let’s take a scenario for explaining the same. Due to a rift between C and D, D gets beaten with a wooden stick by C and consequently, he was charged with the offence of grievous hurt. But later on, during the process of trial D was found to be dead due to the injuries caused to him. A can be tried for the offence of murder in situations concerning punishment.

Section 300(4)- This provision acts in line with the earlier one as this provision foresees a situation where it will not be possible to try a person in the court due to a lack of competent jurisdiction when new facts have been discovered. He/she shall be tried in a different court which has appropriate jurisdiction.

Section 300(5)- This provision grants protection against the concept of double jeopardy in cases of discharge. Discharge occurs in situations where the court after examining the evidence presented by the prosecution opines that there are no sufficient grounds presented before it to punish the accused. The discharge can be exercised in cases such as summons cases, warrants cases etc. However, the scope of this particular provision is confined to that of discharge in summons cases. In simple terms, it explains that if a person has been discharged by the court in a summons case, then after the completion of trial proceedings, he cannot be tried for the same offence.

Concept of Res Judicata and Its Connection to Protection against Double Jeopardy

The concept of Res judicata holds significant importance as it prevents the submission of proof to prove a fact in an issue for which sufficient proof has been presented & the necessary findings had been drawn and recorded at the previous trial conducted in a court of competent jurisdiction. Through relevant evidence, if it would be showcased that the particular thing has been passed in favour of the accused in the former trial and the same issue persists in the consequent trial as well then it denotes a situation of res judicata.

The provision contained under Article 20(2), bars double jeopardy whereas the rule of res judicata prevents or bars the evidence in an issue for which the decision has been already passed for the benefit of the accused in the former trial. It prevents the multiplicity of suits. The scope of Article 20(2) is very general as it has no relevance to that of an issue, whereas the concept of res judicata revolves around the issue in question at the previous and subsequent trials.

In the case of Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab, 1993 AIR 2604, a firearm which was used to commit the crime was recovered upon relying on the statement given by the accused. Initially, he was charged and tried for having the weapon in his custody but later he was acquitted. Trial proceedings of the accused concerning a murder were conducted and during the proceedings, the evidence concerning the custody of the firearm was raised in front of the honourable court. On the other hand, under the concept of res judicata, the Court held that the evidence would remain inadmissible.

Significant Decisions Concerning Article 20(2) of the Indian Constitution & Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

• In the landmark of Thomas Dana v. State of Punjab, 1959 AIR 375, it was laid down by the honourable Supreme Court to avail defence against the concept of double jeopardy as mentioned under the provision of Article 20(2) of the constitution of India, it is essential to showcase that there was a punishment granted as an outcome of the prosecution and that the accused is again convicted for the same crime.
• In the Baij Nath v. State of Bhopal, (1957) SCR 650, case, the accused was a public servant and convicted by the provisions under the Indian Penal Code. The decision was challenged in the high court and the court directed the overrule of prosecution accordingly due to lack of sanction. Later on, he was consequently charged with a new penalty. The honourable Court clarified that the former prosecution was invalid & void, hence it can’t be considered a valid ground for challenge under the concept of double jeopardy.
• Whereas, in the case of Kalawati v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1953 AIR 131, the accused was initially charged with the offence of executing murder & was prosecuted but later on he was set free. The decision passed by the district judge was challenged by the state. The accused contended and claimed the defence of double jeopardy. However, it was clarified by the honourable court that an appeal submitted challenging a decision cannot be treated as a subsequent prosecution instead it would be treated as the mere continuance of the previous prosecution and hence, the plea of double jeopardy shall not be considered.

Conclusion

Thus, based on the above-mentioned information it would be appropriate to mention that the doctrine of “Autrefois acquit” & “Autrefois convict” holds significant importance in upholding the spirit of the law. The legislative system, which encourages certainty, stability and equity, upholds the spirit of the law. These doctrines enumerate that if a person was already punished or set free due to the commission of an offence, then he/she shall not be tried multiple times for the same offence as it results in a waste of the court’s time. By laying down restrictions under these doctrines, the principles of equality and justice shall be served fairly.

References

[1] Autrefois Acquit And Autrefois Convict, Available Here 

[2] Sejal Makkad, What does Autrefois Acquit and autrefois Convict mean?, Available Here

[3] KD Gaur, Criminal Law- Cases and Materials, Ninth Edition

[4] Double Jeopardy and the Law in India, Available Here

[5] Principal Features of a Fair Trial, Available Here

Important Links