Section 366 IPC| Supreme Court Releases Man On Probation Of Good Conduct Considering He Married The Minor And Family Is 'Happily Living Together'

In the matter, the original petitioners were convicted for the offences under Sections 144, 366, 366 A and 149 of IPC. The punishment awarded to the petitioners was a sentence of imprisonment for three years. The petitioners seeking an exemption from surrendering had submitted that the petitioner no. 1 (herein the appellant no.1) had married the victim long time ago and they even have two children born out of wedlock. However, the State objecting to the request submitted in their statements that the SHO during the spot inspection had found that the victim (as per her voluntary statements) got married to petitioner no.1 about 7 years back and begotten two children and were residing together. The State had further submitted that the fact that they got married should not be the reason to allow their plea by condoning crime against the State. The Apex Court however, through an order dated December 7, 2020 granted an exemption from surrendering.

Pursuant to which the Court through an order dated December 12, 2020 had directed the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority to ascertain the factual circumstances and well-being of the victim. The KLSA in its report stated that the appellant no.1 is happily married with the victim and she has been living with him for the last eight years with their two children.

Consequentially, a bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice S.V.N Bhatti observed, “The KSLSA had submitted a report stating that the victim is married to appellant no.1 – Thimma for last about eight years, and they have two children. The family is happily living together. The family members of the appellant – Thimma and the victim have accepted the marriage. The victim has specifically stated that appellant no.1 – Thimma is taking good care of her, and her two children, and has not ill-treated her in any manner. Similar statement has been made by the mother of the victim. Photographs have also been enclosed with the said report”.

Advocate C. M. Angadi appeared for the appellant no. 1-Thimma and AOR H. Chandra Sekhar appeared for the respondent.

The Court said that considering the factual matrix of the case it was inclined to exercise the power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India read with Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

Therefore, observing the facts and circumstances, the bench noted, “Accordingly, while we uphold the conviction of appellant no.1 – Thimma under Sections 143, 149 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, we direct that appellant no.1 – Thimma will be released on probation of good conduct. In view of the report submitted by the KSLSA, we are dispensing with the requirement of a report by the Probation Officer”.

The bench further directed the appellant to execute a bond of good conduct without any surety on other terms and conditions to be fixed by the trial court for the period of three years. The bench also directed the KSLSA to provide legal assistance to appellant to enable him to furnish the bond which will be furnished within a period of two months.

On the above terms, the Court modified the impugned order of sentence, allowed the appeal and disposed of the matter.

Cause Title: Thimma and Others v. State Of Karnataka