Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(All) 2371

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.
Dharm Pal Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Another – Respondent
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7777 of 2024
Decided on : 24-03-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Dr. Kamlesh Kumar,Rakesh Kumar
For the Respondent: G.A.

The doctrine of Double Jeopardy does not bar subsequent prosecution under distinct charges if the accused has not been convicted or acquitted in previous proceedings for the same offence.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 20(2) - Doctrine of Double Jeopardy - The court addressed the legality of prosecuting an individual under different sections for the same incident, emphasizing that double jeopardy applies only if the accused has been prosecuted and punished for the same offence previously. (Paras 18-21)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code - Sections 156(3), 173(8), 190(1)(b) - The court considered the appropriateness of taking cognizance under various sections based on the gravity of the offence, ruling that the trial court acted within its jurisdiction. (Paras 11, 22, 23)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, as the first informant, filed FIRs against the respondent for his son's death following a motorcycle accident. Two FIRs were lodged, with the second under Section 302 IPC being merged due to lack of evidence.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution under Sections 304, 323, 325 IPC was justified and not barred by double jeopardy.

Issues: The main issues included the applicability of double jeopardy and the trial court's discretion in taking cognizance under different sections.

Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that double jeopardy does not apply as the respondent was neither convicted nor acquitted in prior proceedings, affirming the trial court's authority to adjust charges based on evidence.

Result: The order of the revisional court was set aside, and the trial court was directed to proceed against the respondent according to law.

Table of Content
1. details of firs and procedural history. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
2. arguments regarding trial court's decision and double jeopardy. (Para 14 , 15)
3. court's analysis on double jeopardy and trial proceedings. (Para 16 , 17 , 21 , 22 , 23)
4. explanation of double jeopardy under article 20(2) of the constitution. (Para 18 , 19 , 20)
5. conclusion and order regarding the trial proceedings. (Para 24)

1.Heard Dr. Kamlesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shashi Bhushan Rai, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, Sri Ratan Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the record.

2. By means of the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed to set aside the impugned order dated 13.03.2024 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Amroha in Criminal Revision No. 65 of 2023 (Sanjeev Vs. State of U.P. and another) and order dated 05.01.2023 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (S.D.)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, First, Amroha in Case No. 2319 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No. 453 of 2017 (State Vs. Sanjeev) under Sections 304 , 323, 325 IPC , Police Station-Amroha Dehat, District-Amroha.

3. Briefly stated, the petitioner, Dharm Pal Singh, who is the first informant, lodged an FIR on 15.12.2017 against respondent No. 2 Sanjeev bearing Case Crime No. 453 of 2017 under Sections 279, 304A IPC , P.S.-Amroha Dehat District-Jyotibhaphule Nagar alleging that on 29.11.2017 the respondent No. 2 Sanjeev came to his house and around 6:00 pm took away his son Kapil along with him on his motorcycle to attend a party. On the same night at 9:30 pm respondent No. 2 called the petitioner and informed that Kapil had received injuries and was admitted at Doctor Garg Hospital. The petitioner with his wife Rajwati and his son Sanjeev Kumar went to the hospital and found his son lying soaked in blood. The respondent No. 2 Sanjeev was present at the hospital. Thereafter, Kapil was referred to the Glokul Hospital and then to Kothiwal Hospital and thereafter to Atul Jain Hospital at Moradabad where Kapil breathed his last.

4. The panchayatnama of the deceased was conducted on 15.12.2017 and the autopsy was conducted on 16.12.2017. The FIR was lodged on 15.12.2017 bearing Case Crime No. 453 of 2017 under Sections 279, 304A IPC , P.S.-Amroha Dehat District-Jyotibhaphule Nagar.

5. While its investigation was in progress, the petitioner moved an application dated 04.01.2018 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amroha against respondent No. 2 Sanjeev and two unknown to lodge fresh FIR under Section 302 IPC alleging the same incident. The said application was allowed on 18.01.2018 directing the Officer In-charge, Police Station-Amroha Dehat to register the case. Thus, another FIR was registered against the respondent No. 2 Sanjeev and two unknown persons on 08.02.2018 bearing Case Crime No. 27 of 2018, under Section 302 IPC , P.S.-Amroha Dehat, District-Amroha.

6. As the allegations in both the FIRs related to the same incident, the investigation of both the case crime numbers i.e. Case Crime No. 453 of 2017 and 27 of 2018 were clubbed together vide CD No. 13 dated 26.02.2018.

7. However, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet in Case Crime No. 453 of 2017 under Sections 279, 304A IPC , P.S.-Amroha Dehat, District-Amroha on 01.03.2018, but due to lack of evidence under Section 302 IPC , therefore, the case crime No. 27/2018 under Section 302 IPC was merged in it.

8. Being aggrieved, the petitioner moved an application on 22.06.2018, under Sections 173(8) and 190(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amroha to further investigate the Case Crime No. 27 of 2018 under Section 302 IPC .

9. The learned Magistrate after considering the entire material on record allowed the application on 08.05.2019 directing to further investigate the matter. T