STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus HAT SINGH AND ORS.

STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus HAT SINGH AND ORS.

Sections 5 and 6 of the Rajasthan Sati (Prevention) Act, 1987, contemplate distinct offences with different ingredients. Prosecution under both does not violate Article 20(2); double jeopardy is only triggered when the same offence is prosecuted twice, and this is not the case here. Even after issuance of a prohibitory order under Section 6, prosecution under Section 5 is maintainable if its ingredients are made out.

Parties
Appellant: State of Rajasthan; Respondents: Hat Singh and Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
08 January 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appellate Decision
Outcome
Appeals allowed. Judgment of the High Court set aside.
Legal Topics
Double Jeopardy, Glorification of Sati, Prosecution Under Overlapping Provisions
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Double Jeopardy Glorification of Sati Prosecution Under Overlapping Provisions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

State of Rajasthan

Appellant

Hat Singh and Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appellate Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution under Sections 5 and 6(1)(2)(3) of Rajasthan Sati (Prevention) Act, 1987 violates Article 20(2) of the Constitution
  2. 2 Are Sections 5 and 6(3) overlapping, and does Section 5 cease to apply once a prohibitory order is made under Section 6?
  3. 3 Effect of non-publication of Collector's prohibitory order

Ratio Decidendi

Sections 5 and 6 of the Rajasthan Sati (Prevention) Act, 1987, contemplate distinct offences with different ingredients. Prosecution under both does not violate Article 20(2); double jeopardy is only triggered when the same offence is prosecuted twice, and this is not the case here. Even after issuance of a prohibitory order under Section 6, prosecution under Section 5 is maintainable if its ingredients are made out.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed. Judgment of the High Court set aside.

Orders

  • Prosecution shall proceed against accused persons consistently with observations in this judgment.
  • Trial court to give precedence to the present case and conclude the proceedings expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date of first appearance of accused persons.