Double Jeopardy (s.337 BNSS) — BNSS (Criminal Law II) Notes
Double Jeopardy (s.337 BNSS)
Nemo debet bis vexari [no one should be tried twice for the same cause]. It is a shield against State harassment, guaranteed by Art. 20(2) and s.337. But the shield has a precise shape — and three near-identical problems test whether you know exactly where its edges are.
Section 337 BNSS [s.300 CrPC] embodies the rule of autrefois acquit / autrefois convict [previously acquitted / previously convicted].
A. The rule (s.337(1))
A person once tried and convicted or acquitted of an offence by a competent court shall not be tried again for the same offence, nor for any other offence on the same facts for which a different charge might have been made.
B. The exceptions
- New consequence (s.337(2)). Where an act later produces a consequence not known at the first trial (e.g. the victim dies after the conviction for hurt), the person may be tried afresh for the offence constituted by that new consequence, with the court’s consent.
- Distinct offence / separate charge. Where the facts also make out a distinct offence for which a separate charge could have been framed.
C. Issue-estoppel
Even where double jeopardy strictly does not apply, an issue of fact finally decided in the accused’s favour at one trial cannot be reopened at a later trial (issue-estoppel — a narrower, evidence-law principle).
🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — the three look-alikes
Facts. (i) X is convicted of grievous hurt; the victim later dies of the injuries. (ii) P is convicted of culpable homicide and the State wants to try him for murder on the same known facts. (iii) A is acquitted under the Arms Act (possession not proved) and is then tried for murder with that weapon.
Rule. (i) s.337(2) — a new consequence (death) not known at the first trial permits a fresh trial. (ii) s.337(1) — the death was already known, so a graver charge on the same facts is barred. (iii) issue-estoppel — the fact of possession, decided in A’s favour, cannot be relitigated, though the murder charge itself is a different offence.
Apply. (i) fresh trial allowed; (ii) barred; (iii) the State cannot re-prove possession.
Conclusion. Same-looking facts, three different answers — the key is when the consequence became known and what fact was decided.
Section 337 BNSS: “A person who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made…”
In Simple Terms: Once tried and finished for an offence, you cannot be dragged back for the same offence or the same facts — unless a brand-new consequence arises.
flowchart TD
ROOT["Double jeopardy s.337"]:::root
ROOT --> A["Rule s.337(1): no re-trial for<br/>same offence / same facts"]:::sidebox
ROOT --> B["Exception s.337(2): NEW consequence<br/>(hurt then death) - fresh trial"]:::leaf
ROOT --> C["Distinct offence / separate charge"]:::leaf
ROOT --> D["Issue-estoppel: fact decided for<br/>accused cannot be reopened"]:::leaf
classDef root fill:#FFF8DC,stroke:#000,stroke-width:1px,color:#000;
classDef leaf fill:#E6F3FF,stroke:#1E3A8A,color:#000;
classDef sidebox fill:#FDE7C9,stroke:#B45309,color:#000;
linkStyle default stroke:#888,stroke-width:1px;
Case Laws
- Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay (1953) — Art. 20(2) bars a second prosecution and punishment before a court; a departmental proceeding is not a bar.
- State of Bombay v. S.L. Apte (1961) — “same offence” means the ingredients are the same; different offences on the same facts are not barred.
- Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab (1956) — issue-estoppel: a fact decided in the accused’s favour cannot be reopened in a later trial.
📄 Full notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past KSLU questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · 10 Solved Problems · All BNSS (Criminal Law II) topics