Brief Facts
- A 4-year-old child went missing from School. The accused, P. Manikandan, who was known to the child’s father and had borrowed `5 lakhs from him, was alleged to havekidnapped and murdered the child.
- The Police registered the case under Sections 364A and 302 IPC. The Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to death. On appeal, the Madras High Court (Division Bench) acquitted the accused. However, the High Court also directed that the CBI should conduct a de novo investigation and, if necessary, prosecute the appellant again.
- The accused filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the Madras High Court seeking quashing of the CBI charge sheet, arguing violation of double jeopardy.
- The High Court dismissed the petition. Hence, the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Issues
- Whether when considering an appeal against conviction under Section 386(b)(i) of Cr.P.C., is the High Court empowered to direct re-investigation, if yes, then could such a direction be given while acquitting the accused, in the very same order?
- Whether, in the attending fact and circumstances, the de novo investigation violated the principle of double jeopardy and the appellant’s right under Article 20(ii) of the Constitution of India and Section 300 of the Cr.P.C.?
Held
- The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and opined that the Appellant’s right enshrined in Article 20(2) of the constitution was violated. The Supreme Court further held that Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C provides for further investigation with the permission of the magistrate, but not reinvestigation. The findings of the Court are as under:
- “Firstly, what must be acknowledged is that there exists a clear difference between retrial and reinvestigation. Retrial implies that the judicial process that starts after the investigation of the crime is complete shall be redone from the start, whereas the latter implies that the police and other investigating authorities are once again required to collect and examine evidence in order to present charges before a Court, so that the trial can commence on such freshly collected evidence.
- Section 386(b) of Cr.P.C, extracted supra, as also the judgments referred to in the earlier portion of this judgment, unanimously speak of retrial and not reinvestigation. Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C provides for further investigation with the permission of the magistrate, but not reinvestigation. Such a concept, as it appears, is only invoked in extraneous circumstances. The mere observation that the investigating authorities may have taken a lackadaisical ethical approach does not warrant the accused being put through the wringer once more for the same offence.
- In our considered view, the position of law that the principle applies is unquestionable. The three conditions laid down in T.P. Gopalakrishnan v. State of Kerala, (2022) 14 SCC 323 are: Firstly, there must have been previous proceedings before a court of law or a judicial tribunal of competent jurisdiction in which the person must have been prosecuted. The said prosecution must be valid and not null and void or abortive. Secondly, the conviction or acquittal in the previous proceeding must be in force at the time of the second proceeding in relation to the same offence and same set of facts, for which he was prosecuted and punished in the first proceeding. Thirdly, the subsequent proceeding must be a fresh proceeding, where he is, for the second time, sought to be prosecuted and punished for the same offence and same set of facts.”
- In the present facts, a previous proceeding did take place wherein the Trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to death. There is no question as to the Court’s competence or jurisdiction. The first condition is, therefore, met. The acquittal awarded by the High Court has to remain in force for the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence of innocent until proven guilty applies and cannot be displaced in except in circumstances otherwise provided by law. The second principle is also met. Regarding the third condition, had the order been for retrial, the court could have held that the condition remained unmet; however, since the direction was for reinvestigation and that too by a different investigation agency, it necessarily has to begin from zero. Hence, the second investigation, chargesheet and examination of witnesses would classify as meeting the third condition.
- In view of the discussion as aforesaid, this Court is of the view that the right enshrined in Article 20(2) of the appellant stands violated.
Relevant Para No.
- 23, 24, 31, 32 and 33