Issue Estoppel in Criminal Trials: “One Fact, One Finding” — A District Judge Interview Must‑Know

Issue estoppel in Indian criminal law is a practical fairness rule: when a competent criminal court has already recorded a clear finding on a specific issue of fact in favour of the accused, the prosecution cannot reopen that very fact in a later criminal trial between the same parties, even if the later case is for a different offence.

In other words, the second case may go on, but the prosecution cannot “re-litigate” an identical fact that has already been finally decided for the accused. This keeps criminal adjudication consistent and prevents contradictory fact-findings.

The one-line definition (easy to memorize)

Print Page

What is distinction between S 300 of CRPC and Article 20(2) of Constitution of India?

 Section 300 of the CrPC embodies the aforesaid two principles of nemo debet bis vexari (no man shall be put twice in peril for the same offence) and autrefois acquit (the person has been acquitted on a same charge on which he is being prosecuted). These principles are slightly different from the principle of double jeopardy embodied in Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. For invoking the principle of double jeopardy, conviction of the accused is necessary, because the words “prosecuted” and “punished” are used in Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. Insofar as the Section 300 of the CrPC is concerned, a person convicted or acquitted, cannot be tried for the same offence. Therefore, the principle embodied in Section 300 of the CrPC can be invoked in both scenarios i.e. conviction or acquittal for the same offence. It is based on the aforementioned principle that no man shall be put twice in peril for the same offence.
 In the High Court of Bombay( Nagpur Bench)

(Before Manish Pitale, J.)

Sachin Vs State of Maharashtra,

Criminal Writ Petition No. 119 of 2020

Decided on August 4, 2021, 

Citation: 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 1576 : (2021) 3 AIR Bom R (Cri) 231 : 2021 Cri LJ 3457

Print Page

Supreme Court: Distinction between Issue estoppel and principle of Double jeopardy

The principle of issue-estoppel is also known as 'cause of action estoppel' and the same is different from the principle of double jeopardy or; autre fois acquit, as embodied in Section 403 Code of Criminal Procedure. This principle applies where an issue of fact has been tried by a competent court on a former occasion, and a finding has been reached in favour of an accused. Such a finding would then constitute an estoppel, or res judicata against the prosecution but would not operate as a bar to the trial and conviction of the accused, for a different or distinct offence. It would only preclude the reception of evidence that will disturb that finding of fact already recorded when the accused is tried subsequently, even for a different offence, which might be permitted by Section 403(2) Code of Criminal Procedure. Thus, the rule of issue estoppel prevents re-litigation of an issue which has been determined in a criminal trial between the parties. If with respect to an offence, arising out of a transaction, a trial has taken place and the accused has been acquitted, another trial with respect to the offence alleged to arise out of the transaction, which requires the court to arrive at a conclusion inconsistent with the conclusion reached at the earlier trial, is prohibited by the rule of issue estoppel. In order to invoke the rule of issue estoppel, not only the parties in the two trials should be the same but also, the fact in issue, proved or not, as present in the earlier trial, must be identical to what is sought to be re-agitated in the subsequent trial. If the cause of action was determined to exist, i.e., judgment was given on it, the same is said to be merged in the judgment. If it was determined not to exist, the unsuccessful Plaintiff can no longer assert that it does; he is estopped per rem judicatam.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 2013

Decided On: 11.01.2013

 Ravinder Singh  Vs.  Sukhbir Singh and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.S. Chauhan and V. Gopala Gowda, JJ.

Citation:  (2013) 9 SCC 245,MANU/SC/0026/2013

Print Page

Basic concept of issue estoppel in criminal law

The principle of issue-estoppel is entirely a creature of judicial decisions, and has not been embodied in the Code of Criminal Procedure. The rule of issue-estoppel in a criminal trial is that where an issue of fact has been decided by a competent Court on a former occasion and a finding reached in favour of an accused, such a finding constitutes an estoppel or res judicata against the prosecution, not as a bar to the trial and conviction of the accused for a different or distinct offence, but as barring the reception of evidence to disturb the finding of fact in a subsequent or different trial of the accused.

The rule of issue-estoppel relates only to the admissibility of evidence which is designed to upset a finding of fact recorded by a competent Court at a previous trial. The rule as to issue-estoppel applies where same issue was distinctly raised and inevitably decided in earlier proceedings between the same parties.

Print Page

When court should set aside award passed by arbitrator even if he has taken plausible view?

Once we interpret the formula in the manner indicated above, the necessary consequences would be to hold that the Arbitral Tribunal(s) did not decide the cases with the correct application of the formula and further that the claim for price adjustment in respect of bitumen laid by the contractors was not correct. Therefore, it can be held that the Award(s) are contrary to the contractual terms. At the same time, this outcome poses a dilemma inasmuch as in these cases, the Arbitral Tribunal has taken a particular view and when this was a plausible view, keeping in mind the parameters of judicial review of the Court in exercise of powers Under Section 34 of the Act, normally the Court would not interfere with such Awards. However, as already indicated above, such a situation has arisen because of conflicting Awards given by the Arbitral Tribunals themselves, which has provoked this Court to take a final view in the matter, necessitated by the aforesaid reason. If one takes into consideration the theory that one applies the principle mechanically i.e. that a plausible view is not to be interfered with, then it may lead to very anomalous situation. In such an eventuality, view taken by a particular Arbitral Tribunal in favour of the Contractor would be upheld as plausible view. Likewise, the Court will have to uphold the view taken by a particular Arbitral Tribunal in favour of NHAI as well, as a plausible view. Therefore, the purpose is to avoid such a situation which cannot be permitted as it would result in upholding both kinds of arbitral awards interpreting the same clause, whether they go in favour of the employer or they go in favour of the contractor. When the exercise is done keeping in view these considerations and outcome thereof is not determined, interest of justice would also demand that this result has to be applied to the pending cases, which have not attained finality. Therefore, in these peculiar circumstances, we hold that the principle of issue estoppel will apply only in those cases where matters have attained finality and no judicial proceedings are pending. In all those cases, including the present one, where awards are challenged on this particular aspect, this judgment will govern the outcome.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 458, 459 and 460 of 2018

Decided On: 23.02.2018

 National Highway Authority of India Vs. Progressive MVR (JV)

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, JJ.

Citation: (2018) 14 SCC 688

Print Page

Whether finding given by court without jurisdiction on merits of case will amount to res judicata?

In our opinion the High Court misconstrued the earlier order as it failed to note that the observations made thereunder were not binding since they were made without jurisdiction. It is useful to quote Corpus Juris Secundum2, which recognizes the difficulty faced by the High Court in application of res judicata in following words-

it is sometimes difficult to determine when a particular issue determined is of sufficient dignity to be covered by the Rule of estoppel.

Mulla3 has aptly cautioned against such mis-application of res judicata in the following manner-

It is not to be assumed that matters in respect of which issues have been framed are all of them directly and substantially in issue. Nor is there any special significance to be attached to the fact that a particular issue is the first in the list of issues. Which of the matters are directly in issue and which collaterally or incidentally, must be determined on the facts of each case. A material test to be applied is whether the court considers the adjudication of the issue material and essential for its decision.

19. It is apparent from the perusal of the impugned order that the High Court stretched the ambit of 'finality' for some observations to the saying (relating to collateral aspects) that every such observation was final unless reversed in appeal, which had an effect of throttling the substantive justice out of life. We cannot approve such reasoning of the High Court that the issue had attained finality, since the observations were made by a court which went against its own findings that the court did not have any authority/jurisdiction to do so. Once the court concludes that a case is not maintainable Under Section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure, it did not have any jurisdiction to make further observations on merits as has been done in this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 164 of 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 2190 of 2017)

Decided On: 23.01.2018

 Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai Vs. Pankaj Arora (Secretary) and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

N.V. Ramana and S. Abdul Nazeer, JJ.

Citation: (2018) 3 SCC 699

Print Page

Notes on Estoppel- S 115 of Indian evidence Act

S 115 of Indian evidence Act:-

When a person by his declaration,act or omission intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief,neither he nor his representative can be allowed to deny truth of that thing in a suit or proceeding between himself and such person or his representative.

Principle of S 115 :- In simpler language,a person can not be allowed to say one thing at one time and the contrary at another: He can not blow both hot and cold at the same time. It is not necessary

to prove that he acted with any fraudulent intention. He will be estopped if he himself was acting under a mistake or misapprehension.

This section does not apply where the statement relied upon is made to a person who knows the true facts and is not misled by the untrue statement .There can be no estoppel if true facts

are known to both the parties.
Read important judgments on estoppel
Click here

Print Page

Whether principle of res judicata is applicable if legality of previous order of court is subject matter of appeal before appellate court?

...When the proceedings have attained finality parties are bound by the judgment and are estopped from questioning it. They cannot litigate again on the same cause of action nor can they litigate any issue which was necessary for decision in the earlier litigation. These two aspects are "cause of action estoppel" and "issue estoppel". These two terms are of common law origin. Again, once an issue has been finally determined, parties cannot subsequently in the same suit advance arguments or adduce further evidence directed to showing that the issue was wrongly determined. Their only remedy is to approach the higher forum if available. The determination of the issue between the parties gives rise to, as noted above, an issue estoppel....

In the subsequent judgment of a Bench of two learned Judges in Narayan Dutt Tiwari (supra), it has been held that principles of res judicata and constructive res judicata apply also to successive stages of the same proceedings. However, in the present case this principle would not stand attracted for the simple reason that the legality of the order of eviction was the subject matter of a statutory appeal Under Section 15(1) (b) before the appellate authority. 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 5129 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 24952 of 2015)

Decided On: 11.04.2017

 Dalip Kaur Brar Vs. Guru Granth Sahib Sewa Mission (Regd.) and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.S. Khehar, C.J.I. and Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.

Citation:(2017) 14 SCC159

Print Page

Whether principle of issue estoppel is applicable to criminal trial?

“23. This Court has time and again explained the

principle of issue estoppel in a criminal trial

observing that where an issue of fact has been tried

by a competent court on an earlier occasion and a

finding has been recorded in favour of the accused,

such a finding would constitute an estoppel or res

judicata against the prosecution, not as a bar to the

trial and conviction of the accused for a different

or distinct offence, but as precluding the

acceptance/reception of evidence to disturb the

finding of fact when the accused is tried 

subsequently for a different offence. This rule is

distinct from the doctrine of double jeopardy as it

does not prevent the trial of any offence but only

precludes the evidence being led to prove a fact in

issue as regards which evidence has already been

led and a specific finding has been recorded at an

earlier criminal trial. Thus, the rule relates only to

the admissibility of evidence which is designed to

upset a finding of fact recorded by a competent

court in a previous trial on a factual issue…”

We therefore reject the submission.

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs.1041-1042 of 2008

Ashwani Kumar @ Ashu & Anr. Vs State Of Punjab 

Citation: (2015)6 SCC308

Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

Print Page

Whether subsequent judgment will operate as issue estoppel ?

We now deal with the case of the other appellants. The
submission advanced by Shri Tulsi that the subsequent judgment will
operate as issue estoppel is not correct. First and foremost the
offences are different and distinct. The rule regarding issue estoppel
relates to admissibility of evidence in subsequent proceedings which
is designed to up-set a finding of fact recorded on the previous
occasion and mandates that the finding so rendered on earlier occasion
must operate as issue estoppel in subsequent proceedings. It makes it
impermissible to lead any such evidence at a subsequent stage or
occasion. The attempt on part of Mr. Tulsi is just the opposite. He
seeks to rely on the finding at a subsequent stage to up-set a finding of
fact recorded on a previous occasion. The law on the point was
succinctly stated by this Court in Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel
v. State of Gujarat (2012) 7 SCC 621 in following words:
“23. This Court has time and again explained the
principle of issue estoppel in a criminal trial
observing that where an issue of fact has been tried
by a competent court on an earlier occasion and a
finding has been recorded in favour of the accused,
such a finding would constitute an estoppel or res
judicata against the prosecution, not as a bar to the
trial and conviction of the accused for a different
or distinct offence, but as precluding the
acceptance/reception of evidence to disturb the

finding of fact when the accused is tried
subsequently for a different offence. This rule is
distinct from the doctrine of double jeopardy as it
does not prevent the trial of any offence but only
precludes the evidence being led to prove a fact in
issue as regards which evidence has already been
led and a specific finding has been recorded at an
earlier criminal trial. Thus, the rule relates only to
the admissibility of evidence which is designed to
upset a finding of fact recorded by a competent
court in a previous trial on a factual issue…”
We therefore reject the submission.

Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs.1041-1042 of 2008

Ashwani Kumar @ Ashu & Anr. V State Of Punjab 

Citation;(2015)6 SCC308
Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

Print Page

Whether Rule of issue estoppel prevents re-litigation of an issue?

The principle of issue-estoppel is also known as ‘cause of action estoppel’ and the same is different from the principle of double jeopardy or; autre fois acquit, as embodied in Section 403 Cr.P.C. This principle applies where an issue of fact has been tried by a competent court on a former occasion, and a finding has been reached in favour of an accused. Such a finding would then constitute an estoppel, or res judicata against the prosecution but would not operate as a bar to the trial and conviction of the accused, for a different or distinct offence. It would only preclude the reception of evidence that will disturb that finding of fact already recorded when the accused is tried subsequently, even for a different offence, which might be permitted by Section 403(2) Cr.P.C. Thus, the rule of issue estoppel prevents re-litigation of an issue which has been determined in a criminal trial between the parties. If with respect to an offence, arising out of a transaction, a trial has taken place and the accused has been acquitted, another trial with respect to the offence alleged to arise out of the transaction, which requires the court to arrive at a conclusion inconsistent with the conclusion reached at the earlier trial, is prohibited by the rule of issue estoppel. In order to invoke the rule of issue estoppel, not only the parties in the two trials should be the same but also, the fact in issue, proved or not, as present in the earlier trial, must be identical to what is sought to be re-agitated in the subsequent trial. If the cause of action was determined to exist, i.e., judgment was given on it, the same is said to be merged in the judgment. If it was determined not to exist, the unsuccessful plaintiff can no longer assert that it does; he is estopped per rem judicatam.1

Supreme Court of India

Ravinder Singh vs Sukhbir Singh & Ors. on 11 January, 2013

Bench: B.S. Chauhan, V. Gopala Gowda

Print Page