SUPREME COURT UPLIFTED THE PRINCIPLE OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY AND STATED ACCUSED MUST NOT BE SUBJECTED TO RE INVESTIGATION
Category: Criminal Law
「 ✦ Content ✦ 」
CASE NAME: P. MANIKANDAN vs CBI AND ORS
CASE NUMBER: CRIMINAL APPEAL OF 2024, ARISING OUT OF SLP(Crl) No 8770 OF 2023
DATE: 19TH DECEMBER, 2024
QUORUM: HON’BLE JUSTICE C.T RAVIKUMAR AND HON’BLE JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL
FACTS OF THEN CASE
On June 2013, a case was filed under Sections 364A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the Accused who is also Appellant here, he was accused of kidnapping a 4-year-old child from Gandhi International Matriculation School, Mangalam, via his motorcycle. After killing the child, the accused allegedly disposed of her body in a well. The Trial Court sentenced the accused to life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Section 304A IPC, and also imposed the death penalty that is capital punishment for the offence under Section 302 IPC, which is subject to confirmation by the respective High Court.
The High Court overturned his conviction and his sentence. The High Court also ordered that all relevant documents be transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The CBI then re-registered the case, and the Accused who is Appellant here filed a petition before the High Court to quash the chargesheet against him, which was dismissed by the High Court. Due to this the Appellant reached the Supreme Court. Division Bench of the High Court, cited shortcomings and poor performance in the police investigation, hence acquitted the accused. The CBI reinvestigated the matter, and the new trial was still pending, the accused filed a petition to dismiss the case against him. In 2023, the High Court rejected his plea and upheld its 2018 decision, that’s why accused went to Supreme Court for the justice.
ISSUE OF THE CASE
The main issue was whether for such cases concept of reinvestigation is required? And after considering the facts and circumstances of the said case, the Supreme Court observed that Section 386(b) of the CrPC should be followed and respected and promoted the concept of retrial instead of reinvestigation., Section 173(8) of the CrPC allows further investigation with the magistrate’s permission, but not reinvestigation. The concept of reinvestigation is typically followed only under exceptional and special circumstances and just observation that the investigating authorities may have performed the negligent or unprofessional approach does not amount to another trial for the same similar offence. The Apex Court further pointed that transferring the case to the CBI should only occur under special circumstances, as the agency, with its limited resources, could become overwhelmed and slow.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
SECTION 364A OF IPC- Kidnaping for ransom. Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a person in detention and threatens to cause death or hurt to such person, shall be punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and shall also liable to fine.
SECTION 302 OF IPC- Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or [imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.
SECTION 304A OF IPC-deals with death caused by rash or negligent acts that do not amount to culpable homicide.
SECTION 386B OF CrPC- The appellate court can reverse the order and direct further inquiry, re trail, or committal for trail.
SECTION 173(8)- Further investigation with the magistrate’s permission.
ARTICLE 20(2) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA- Violation of fundamental right with respect to the concept of double jeopardy.
ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS BY THE APPELLANTS Appellant argued that reinvestigation is against the concept of natural justice for his case. He claimed that such reinvestigation would violate his fundamental right that is Article 20(2) of the Constitution, as well as Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which prohibits a person from being tried for the same offence twice.
NO ARGUMENTS BY THE RESPONDENT
ANALYSIS
The Apex Court considered whether reinvestigation was necessary in such a case and concluded that retrial is right, not reinvestigation, should be the approach, as per Section 386(b) of the CrPC. Court also stated that reinvestigation under Section 173(8) is permitted only in rare and extraordinary circumstances and does not apply simply due to alleged negligence in the investigation. The Court stressed that transferring the case to the CBI should occur only under special conditions.
CONCLUSION
To conclude, the Supreme Court said that in this case, reinvestigation should not be allowed and that retrial was the appropriate course of action, with respect to Section 386(b) of the CrPC. The Court clarified that reinvestigation under Section 173(8) is only permissible in rare circumstances that too with the approval of magistrate, not just due to negligence in the investigation. It also pointed that transferring a case to the CBI should be done under special conditions, as the agency’s resources are limited. The Appellant’s argument regarding double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution was considered, and the Supreme Court upheld the principle that a person should not be tried for the same offence twice.
