“Autrefois convict” and “autrefois acquit” are legal concepts that pertain to the principle of double jeopardy or “non bis in idem” in French law. These principles essentially mean that a person cannot be tried or punished twice for the same offense. While these terms originate in French law, similar concepts exist in various legal systems around the world, including in the United States and the United Kingdom.
Autrefois Convict:
This term means “previously convicted” in French. It applies when a person has already been convicted and punished for a particular offense. As a result, they cannot be tried again for the same offense in the same jurisdiction.
Autrefois Acquit:
This term means “previously acquitted” in French. It comes into play when a person has been charged with an offense and acquitted by a court. The principle of autrefois acquit prevents the person from being tried again for the same offense based on the same set of facts.
These principles are fundamental to the protection of individuals from double jeopardy and ensure that once a person has been tried and either convicted or acquitted for a specific offense, they cannot be subjected to a subsequent trial for the same offense. This is based on the notion that it is unjust to subject an individual to multiple prosecutions or punishments for the same conduct.
Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in India pertains to the principle of double jeopardy. It’s closely related to the concept of “autrefois convict” and “autrefois acquit,” as previously explained. Section 300, along with its nature, scope, and related maxims, ensures that individuals are protected from being tried or punished twice for the same offense. Here’s a breakdown:
Section 300 – Double Jeopardy:
- Section 300 of the CrPC provides protection against double jeopardy. It states that a person who has once been tried and convicted or acquitted for an offense shall not be tried again for the same offense.
Nature of Double Jeopardy (Section 300):
- The nature of double jeopardy is rooted in the principles of fairness and justice. It prevents the state from subjecting an individual to multiple trials or punishments for the same conduct. It safeguards the accused from harassment and undue hardship.
Scope of Double Jeopardy (Section 300)
- The scope of Section 300 is to ensure that once an accused has been either convicted or acquitted for a particular offense, they cannot be retried or subjected to further punishment for the same offense based on the same set of facts.
Related Maxims to Section 300 CrPC
- There are several maxims related to the principle of double jeopardy, which include:
Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa
This Latin maxim means “No one ought to be vexed twice for one and the same cause.” It emphasizes that a person should not be subjected to multiple prosecutions or punishments for the same offense.
Double jeopardy, as enshrined in Section 300 of the CrPC, ensures that the accused’s right against being tried or punished twice for the same offense is protected. This principle is essential for maintaining the integrity and fairness of the criminal justice system and safeguarding the rights of individuals accused of crimes.
Case Laws on Section 300 CrPC
| Case Laws | Summary and Significance |
|---|---|
| K. Satwant Singh v. State of Punjab (1960) | Established the foundational principle of double jeopardy in Indian law, emphasizing that a person cannot be tried twice for the same offense. |
| Emperor v. Homi Jehangir (1945) | Illustrated the concept of double jeopardy and emphasized that a person who has been acquitted cannot be tried again for the same offense. |
| State of Tamil Nadu v. David Annareddy (1980) | Held that the principle of double jeopardy applies to intermediate orders in a case and prevents the re-agitation of the same issue in subsequent proceedings. |
| A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1988) | Reinforced the concept of double jeopardy as a fundamental right of the accused, emphasizing that individuals cannot be subjected to multiple prosecutions or punishments for the same offense. |
| Abdul Rehman Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak (1992) | Ruled that a change in the political regime does not justify the reopening of a concluded criminal trial. Emphasized that double jeopardy applies, and an accused who has been acquitted cannot be retried for the same offense. |
