Offence Of Bigamy Is A Serious One: Supreme Court Modifies 'Flea-Bite' Sentence Imposed On Man Convicted U/S 494 IPC
The Supreme Court, in a bigamy case, said that the offence under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) has to be treated as a serious offence.
The Court was deciding appeals seeking enhancement of the sentence imposed on the accused person.
The two-Judge Bench of Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Kumar emphasised, “The decision in Gopal Lal’s case (supra), and the prescription of maximum corporeal sentence imposable under Sections 494 and 495 I.P.C., would undoubtedly suggest that the offence under Section 494 I.P.C., has to be treated as a serious offence.”
The Bench noted that a reading of Sections 494 and 495 of IPC, would reveal that the legislature viewed the offence of bigamy as a serious offence.
Senior Advocate R. Basanth appeared on behalf of the appellant/complainant while Advocate Ratnakar Das appeared on behalf of the respondent/accused.
Brief Facts -
The appellant/complainant assailed the judgment of the Madras High Court to the extent that it imposed only a fleabite sentence for the conviction of the respondent/accused for the offence under Section 494 of IPC and confirmed the acquittal of the co-accused. Despite the restoration of the conviction entered against them by the Trial Court after reversing their acquittal by the First Appellate Court and the consequential imposition of sentence, the respondents did not challenge the common judgment. The appellant had filed a complaint under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) against the respondent accused and co-accused for having committed offence of bigamy. In fact, on the ground of abetting them for committing the said offence, the parents of the respondent were also arraigned as accused.
It was alleged that the respondent i.e., the appellant’s wife, pending the proceedings for dissolution of marriage between them before the Family Court, during subsistence of their nuptial bond, married the co-accused and that in the wedlock, a child was born. The Trial Court acquitted the respondent’s parents and convicted the respondent and co-accused and sentenced them to undergo one-year rigorous imprisonment each along with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each. Being aggrieved, the accused persons filed appeals and the Additional District and Sessions Judge dismissed the respondent’s one and allowed that of the co-accused. Challenging the same, the appellant approached the Apex Court.
The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case observed, “Though no minimum sentence is prescribed under Section 494 I.P.C., the maximum sentence of imprisonment prescribed thereunder for a conviction thereunder is seven years of imprisonment of either description. It is also to be noted that the said offence is compoundable only by the husband or wife of the person so marrying with the permission of the Court. The same offence under Section 494 I.P.C., with concealment of former marriage from person with whom subsequent marriage is contracted would visit the offender with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and with fine.”
The Court added that when once it is found that an offence under Section 494 IPC, is a serious offence, the circumstances obtaining in this case would constrain it to hold that the imposition of ‘imprisonment till the rising of the court’ is not a proper sentence falling in tune with the rule of proportionality in providing punishment.
“Now bearing in mind all the aforesaid provisions and decisions, if the question whether accused Nos.1 and 2 are granted a proper sentence or what was granted was only a flea-bite sentence, we have no option but to hold that imposition of sentence of ‘imprisonment till the rising of the court’ upon conviction for an offence under Section 494 I.P.C., on them was unconscionably lenient or a flea-bite sentence”, it enunciated.
The Court further said that the undeserving leniency was shown in the case on hand but then, taking into account the fact that the child born to the first and second accused was aged less than two years when the Trial Court passed the sentence and that no minimum term of imprisonment is prescribed for the conviction under Section 494 IPC, and that the maximum sentence imposable for conviction thereunder is seven years, the Trial Court had virtually struck a balance in fixing the term of one year as the corporeal sentence.
“But then, taking note of the fact that the said child is now aged only about six years and the sentence for the conviction under Section 494 I.P.C., can be of both descriptions. We think it appropriate to use our judicial discretion to modify the sentence imposed under the impugned judgment”, it noted.
The Court, therefore, modified the term of the sentence awarded to the respondent accused and co-accused to 6 months each and reduced the fine amount from Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 2,000/- each.
“Taking note of the fact that the child of accused Nos.1 and 2 is now aged only about 6 years, we further order that firstly the second accused shall surrender before the trial Court, within a period of 3 weeks from today to serve out the rest of the sentence. Upon his release from the jail, on suffering the sentence, the first accused shall surrender before the Court to serve her remaining period of sentence and such surrender shall be made by the first accused within a period of 2 weeks from the release of the second accused from the jail”, it also ordered.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the appeals.
Cause Title- Baba Natarajan Prasad v. M. Revathi (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 523)
