Introduction

Autrefois Acquit and Autrefois Convict are French terms meaning previously acquitted and previously convicted respectively. These two terms have their origin in common law where they are accepted as the principles of autrefois acquit and autrefois convict have the effect that the trial cannot go ahead due to the special circumstances that these two pleas depict.

Principle of Autrefois Acquit

• The principle of autrefois acquit means that a person cannot be tried again for an offense for the reason that he has previously been acquitted in the same offense and such a plea can be taken or combined with plea of not guilty.

Principle of Autrefois Convict

• The principle of autrefois convict means that a person cannot be tried for an offense for the reason that he has been previously been convicted in an offense and the same can be combined with the plea of not guilty.

Legal Provisions in Relation to Autrefois Acquit and Autrefois Convict

• The Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) only imbibes the principle of Autrefois convict and not of Autrefois Acquit.
• Article 20 of the COI provides protection in respect of conviction of offences.
  • Article 20(2): States that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offense more than once.
  • Article 20(2): Contains the rule against double jeopardy which enumerates that no person shall be convicted for the same offence more than once.
  • Article 20(2): Adopted from the US Constitution but doesn’t incorporate the principle of autrefois acquit as incorporated by the US Constitution that can be inferred from the content of the amendment which states that no person shall be put in jeopardy of life and limb twice.
  • Article 20(2): Offers protection only when the accused has been prosecuted and has also been punished.

Related Case Laws

• Kalawati v. the State H.P (1953) – The appellant was accused of committing murder and was prosecuted, later acquitted by the district judge. The State appealed against the decision. The defendants took the plea of double jeopardy. The Supreme Court held that the appeal against acquittal cannot be considered to be the second prosecution, but the continuation of original prosecution, Therefore the rule against double jeopardy will not play a role in this situation.
• Thomas Dana v. the State of Punjab (1958)– It was held by the Supreme Court that to claim the protection of the rule against double jeopardy enumerated under Article 20(2), it is necessary to show that there was a previous prosecution and that the prosecution led to punishment and the accused is being punished for the same offence again.