The principle of double jeopardy is a monumental clause in jurisprudence,
its aim is of colossal importance. The principle operates as a proscription
against retrials for the same criminal offence following a trial on the merits
by a court of competent criminal jurisdiction concluding in an acquittal or
conviction. The principle developed at common law in respect for the
draconian punishment traditionally imposed on defendants and the
deficiencies in medieval criminal procedure to the advantage of prosecution.

The common law immunity from re-prosecution gradually developed in
response to the injustice in permitting retrials for the same offence following
an acquittal or conviction. The principle was also designed to prevent the
imposition of multiple punishment for the same criminal transgression in
separate proceedings. Another importance embodied in the double jeopardy
clause is the preservation of the finality of judgment. At this point, a careful
reader will understand the position of double jeopardy in unambiguous
manner.
Hence this article aims at appraising the protectionist clause of double
jeopardy against injustice and not to dig into the history of the principle. It
also aims at advocating the continuous enforcement of the principle through
a constructive conclusion.