While Acquitting, Court Cannot Order Re-Investigation Against Acquitted Accused For Same Offence : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court today (Dec. 19) ruled that a Court, while acquitting the accused, cannot order that he must be subjected to re-investigation for the same offence. The Court set aside the Madras High Court decision which directed a de-novo investigation against the accused for offences in which he was already acquitted, stating that it would amount to a violation of the double jeopardy principle under Article 20(2) of the Constitution. The bench comprising Justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol was hearing the criminal appeal filed against the Madras High Court decision refusing to quash the fresh case registered and re-investigation carried by the CBI upon the direction of the High Court to conduct a de-novo investigation against the appellant for the offences in which he was acquitted. Briefly put, the appellant was convicted by the trial court for the offence of murder and kidnapping, however, the High Court overturned the conviction citing a lack of evidence and significant lapses in an investigation by the police. However, the High Court directed a de novo investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to uncover the facts and initiate proceedings if the appellant's involvement was confirmed. The CBI conducted a fresh investigation and filed a charge sheet before a Special Court under the POCSO Act. Assailing the proceedings initiated by the CBI, the appellant filed a quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., arguing that a re-investigation and fresh trial violated the principle of double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution and Section 300 Cr.P.C. Following the dismissal of the quashing petition, the Appellant approached the Supreme Court. Setting aside the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Karol observed that reinvestigation of the same offence or the same set of facts is impermissible. The Court reasoned that reinvestigation and prosecution for the same offence violated the principle of double jeopardy, which bars an individual from being prosecuted and punished for the same offence twice. Further, the Court disapproved of the High Court's findings that a re-investigation could be ordered if there are lapses in an initial investigation. The Court said that faulty investigation cannot be a ground to initiate a fresh investigation against the accused, and the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. Also, the Court clarified that reinvestigation can only be ordered under exceptional circumstances and typically through constitutional remedies (Articles 226/32), not under appellate powers under Section 386 Cr.P.C. as directed in the instant case. Reference was drawn to the case of T.P. Gopalkrishnan v. State of Kerala (2022), where the Court culled out three principles to ascertain whether the de-novo investigation violated the double jeopardy principle. Firstly, there must have been previous proceedings before a court of law or a judicial tribunal of competent jurisdiction in which the person must have been prosecuted. The said prosecution must be valid and not null and void or abortive. Secondly, the conviction or acquittal in the previous proceeding must be in force at the time of the second proceeding in relation to the same offence and same set of facts, for which he was prosecuted and punished in the first proceeding. Thirdly, the subsequent proceeding must be a fresh proceeding, where he is, for the second time, sought to be prosecuted and punished for the same offence and the same set of facts.Applying these conditions to the present case, the Court noted that the appellant had been prosecuted by a court of competent jurisdiction and acquitted of the same offenses by the High Court. Since the acquittal remained valid at the time of the de-novo initiation of a second proceeding for the same offense, the appellant's right under Article 20(2) of the Constitution was found to have been violated, thus fulfilling all the conditions."In the present facts, a previous proceeding did take place wherein the Trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to death. There is no question as to the Court's competence or jurisdiction. The first condition is, therefore, met. The acquittal awarded by the High Court has to remain in force for the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence of innocent until proven guilty applies and cannot be displaced in except in circumstances otherwise provided by law. The second principle is also met. Regarding the third condition, had the order been for retrial, the court could have held that the condition remained unmet; however, since the direction was for reinvestigation and that too by a different investigation agency, it necessarily has to begin from zero. Hence, the second investigation, chargesheet and examination of witnesses would classify as meeting the third condition.", the court observed.“Vision of the High Court, in our considered view was bad in law, and is therefore quashed...

While Acquitting, Court Cannot Order Re-Investigation Against Acquitted Accused For Same Offence : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

Tags