Autrefois Acquit | Law Optional Notes for UPSC PDF Download

Introduction

• The concept of autrefois acquit in criminal law serves to safeguard individuals from facing prosecution for the same offense multiple times.
• Autrefois acquit, originating from French, translates to "previously acquitted" and embodies the idea that a person, once cleared of a crime, should not be retried for the same allegations.
• This principle rests on the fundamental notion of preventing double jeopardy, ensuring that individuals are protected from being tried repeatedly for the same criminal act.
• For instance, if an individual is acquitted of robbery due to insufficient evidence, they cannot be charged again for the same robbery based on the same evidence.

Understanding the Principle of Autrefois Acquit

• Definition of Autrefois Acquit: Autrefois acquit is a legal principle that embodies the concept of double jeopardy, ensuring that an individual cannot be tried or punished twice for the same offense.
• Protection Against Double Jeopardy: This principle comes into play when a person has already been acquitted or convicted for the same offense in a court of law. It serves as a safeguard against being subjected to multiple prosecutions for the same crime.
• Prevention of Arbitrary Prosecution: Autrefois acquit serves as a shield against arbitrary prosecution, preventing the state from unfairly targeting individuals with repeated legal actions for the same wrongdoing.
• Role in Ensuring Fairness: By prohibiting multiple prosecutions for the same offense, this principle upholds the fundamental tenet of fairness in the legal system, ensuring that individuals are protected from undue harassment by the state.

The Principle in Indian Law

• The principle of autrefois acquit is a fundamental right protected under Article 20(2) of the Indian Constitution.
• Article 20(2) ensures that no individual can be prosecuted and punished for the same offense more than once.
• This provision acts as a safeguard against double jeopardy, a legal concept preventing multiple prosecutions for the same crime.
• Interpreted by the Supreme Court, this principle bars both double jeopardy and repetitive prosecutions.
• Autrefois acquit applies specifically when an accused has been acquitted or convicted of the same offense.
• It does not apply when facing charges of different offenses based on the same facts or when prosecuted in different jurisdictions.
• The Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in India also recognizes autrefois acquit.
• Section 300 of the CrPC stipulates that a person tried and convicted or acquitted cannot be tried again for the same offense.
• Similar protections are outlined in other CrPC sections like Section 26 and Section 403.
• Section 26 prevents charging someone acquitted of an offense again, while Section 403 prohibits further charges after conviction or acquittal.
• The CrPC also acknowledges autrefois convict, which parallels autrefois acquit.
• Autrefois convict states that a person previously convicted and punished for an offense cannot be punished again for the same crime.

Relevant Case Laws on Autrefois Acquit

K. M. Nanavati vs. State of Maharashtra (1962)

• In this case, an individual was tried for murder, initially acquitted by a jury, but retried due to a state government appeal.
• The Supreme Court ruled that retrying the accused violated the principle of double jeopardy, protecting individuals from being tried for the same crime twice.

State of Karnataka vs. L. Muniswamy (1977)

• In this instance, a murder suspect was acquitted by the trial court, but the state's appeal against the acquittal was deemed impermissible by the Supreme Court.
• The court emphasized that protection against double jeopardy extends beyond the trial stage to include appeals, safeguarding individuals from repeated trials for the same offense.

Umedbhai Jadavbhai vs. State of Gujarat (1981)

• Here, a murder defendant, initially cleared by the trial court, faced an appeal against the acquittal, which the Supreme Court found in violation of the principle of double jeopardy.
• The court reiterated that protection against double jeopardy is a constitutional right that cannot be waived by the accused, encompassing all criminal proceedings.

K. Satwant Singh vs. State of Punjab (1960)

• In this case, a murder suspect, after being acquitted by the trial court, was confronted with a fresh charge under a different legal provision.
• The Supreme Court determined that subjecting the accused to a new charge for the same offense violated the principle of double jeopardy, emphasizing consistency in legal proceedings.

Conclusion

• In conclusion, the bedrock safeguard of autrefois acquit, as articulated in Article 20(2) of the Indian Constitution, serves as a fundamental defense against arbitrary prosecution. This principle, preventing individuals from facing prosecution or punishment twice for the same offence, extends across all criminal proceedings, encompassing trials, appeals, and revisions.
• The Supreme Court of India, through pivotal judgments, has elucidated and affirmed the scope and relevance of this principle. Undoubtedly, autrefois acquit stands as a pivotal element within the Indian criminal justice system, underscoring the significance of safeguarding the rights of citizens.