Back
MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, B. R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO
Syed Ayub – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
JUDGMENT
B.R. Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.—The Appeal arises out of a judgment dated 28.01.2025 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy in S.C.No.182 of 2012 sentencing the appellant to life imprisonment for an offence punishable under section 302 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and rigorous imprisonment for 6 months for the offence under section 379 of the IPC. The appellant was the Accused No.2 before the Trial Court.
2. The Appeal was admitted on 06.03.2025. The Trial Court Records were called for and are before us.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/A.2 prays for setting aside of the impugned judgment on a preliminary ground that the impugned judgment warrants interference.
4. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the preliminary issue of whether the impugned judgment warrants interference.
5. It is necessary to set out the factual background of the matter to appreciate the preliminary issue.
Background
6. The appellant/A.2 along with A.1 were earlier tried by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy in Sessions Case No.182 of 2012, for offences un
Double Jeopardy – An order passed in violation of a constitutional guarantee and fundamental right along with law of land on prohibition of a person being tried twice for same offence while convictio....
The retrial of an acquitted person for the same offences violates statutory provisions and constitutional protections against double jeopardy, affirming Article 20(2).
Acquittal in one jurisdiction does not bar prosecution in another for distinct offences under Section 300 of Cr.P.C.
(1) Retrial of offence – There exists clear difference between retrial and reinvestigation – Mere observation that investigating authorities may have taken lackadaisical ethical approach does not war....
Acquittal in a previous trial with a direction for re-investigation is not an acquittal in force, and the protection under Section 300 Cr.P.C. does not apply.
A person acquitted cannot be tried again for similar facts under different charges, as per Section 300 of the Cr.P.C., affirming double jeopardy protection.
A retrial ordered in an appeal against conviction is impermissible without a request from the convict, reaffirming that appellate courts cannot enhance sentences absent an appeal from other parties.
(1) Double Jeopardy – Section 300 of Cr.P.C. bars trial of a person not only for same offence but also for any other offence on same facts – Where there are two distinct offences made up of different....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
