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.
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.
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.
Show 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.
Updated On: Dec 18, 2025
- Atul can be prosecuted again because a new eyewitness has come forward.
- Atul cannot be prosecuted again.
- Atul cannot be prosecuted because the period of limitations has expired.
- Atul can be prosecuted because he was not punished.
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is D
Solution and Explanation
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.
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.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Top SLAT Legal Studies Questions
- A abuses B, by which B is provoked. Because of this provocation, B takes out a gun and shoots at A. The bullet hits C, who is out of sight but is standing near A. C dies. Here, B did not intend or know that the bullet would hit C. B has committed
- Priya promises Shivi that she will obtain a public employment for Shivi and in return Shivi agrees to pay INR 10,000 to Priya. The contract is
- Principle: An accident physically unavoidable is a good defence under the law of torts.
Facts: Unexpectedly, a biker crossed in front of a bus on a road that was muddy because of the recent downpour. The bus skidded on the road as the driver applied the brakes to stop it from hitting the bicycle. As a result, the front of the plaintiff’s bus, which was approaching from the other way, was struck by the rear of the bus. It was discovered that both buses were being driven at moderate speeds. The accident nonetheless happened despite the driver’s best efforts.
Choose the correct derivation.
- Principle 1: Indian Constitution provides for freedom of speech and expression to all of its citizens.
Principle 2: The freedom is subject to reasonable restrictions like public order, etc.
Fact: At the time of the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution, which denounced Jammu and Kashmir’s statehood, the Central Government restricted Internet services in the region mentioned in its order. In certain regions, it reduced the speed from 4G to 2G. These orders were passed by the Central Government from time to time in light of the rumoured being spread about civilian encounter killings to prevent any untoward law and order situation from happening in the region and to quell the spread of fake news.
Choose the correct option.
- A and B got married. Ten days after the marriage, the husband asked wife B to attend his friend’s wedding and to wear all her jewellery. Instead of going to the wedding, A took B to the forest and threatened to kill her unless she gave all her jewellery. B removed all her jewellery and scolded her husband and said she would file a police complaint. A lost his temper and started beating B. By hearing the commotion, people came to save B.
Can ‘B’ file a complaint against her husband?
View More Questions
Top SLAT Indian Penal Code (IPC) Questions
Top SLAT Questions
- Which of the following is an odd one out?
- Sangeet takes a right turn and moves for 5 km. He then turns left and walks for 15 km. He now takes a right turn and walks for 20 km. He again takes a right turn and walks for 15 km. He ultimately takes a right turn and walks for 10 km and stops. Where is he in comparison with his starting point?
- Identify strong/weak arguments. Should government impose a ban on liquor?
Argument 1: No, taxes on liquor are good source of revenue to government.
Argument 2: Yes, consumption of liquor leads to crime and cases of drunken driving.
- Which of the following words CANNOT be created with the letters of the word MEASUREMENT?
- Fill the blank so that the second pair of words exhibits the same relationship as the first pair.
Numismatist : Coins :: Arctophilist : ______
View More Questions