Question

Principle: No man should be put in peril twice for the same offence.
Fact: Atul was driving his truck in an inebriated condition, which rammed into a cab killing the driver and the passenger. Atul fled from the scene and was arrested after absconding for a few months. He was prosecuted but for the lack of evidence acquitted. A year later, an eyewitness mustered courage and came forward to the police. The State sought to prosecute Atul again.
Choose the correct derivation.

• A. Atul can be prosecuted again because a new eyewitness has come forward.
• B. Atul cannot be prosecuted again.
• C. Atul cannot be prosecuted because the period of limitations has expired.
• D. Atul can be prosecuted because he was not punished.

Hint:

Double jeopardy applies only when a person has been both prosecuted and punished for the same offence. Acquittal without punishment does not bar a fresh trial.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is D

Step 1: Understanding the legal principle.
The principle refers to the doctrine of double jeopardy, which means that a person should not be punished twice for the same offence. This protection applies only when the person has been both prosecuted and punished earlier.
Step 2: Analyzing the facts of the case.
Atul was earlier prosecuted for the offence but was acquitted due to lack of evidence. Since there was no conviction or punishment, the protection against double jeopardy does not apply in this situation.
Step 3: Effect of new evidence.
The emergence of a new eyewitness constitutes fresh and material evidence. Since Atul was not punished earlier, a subsequent prosecution is legally permissible.
Step 4: Examination of options.
(A) Incorrect, because the reason is not merely the new eyewitness but the absence of punishment earlier.
(B) Incorrect, as double jeopardy applies only after punishment.
(C) Incorrect, since the period of limitation is not relevant in serious offences like culpable homicide.
(D) Correct, because Atul was not punished in the earlier trial.
Step 5: Conclusion.
Since Atul was acquitted earlier and not punished, prosecuting him again does not violate the principle of double jeopardy. Hence, option (D) is correct.