SUPREME COURT OBSERVES THAT PUNISHMENT FOR BIGAMY SHOULD BE PROPORTIONATE TO GRAVITY OF OFFENCE

A two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Kumar passed a Judgment dated 15-07-2024 in the matter of Baba Natarajan Prasad vs M. Revathi, Criminal Appeal No. 2912 / 2024 arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 11461 / 2022 and Criminal Appeal No. 2913 / 2024 arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 11824 / 2022, and observed that the punishment imposed on a convict ought to be directly proportional to the nature, gravity and magnitude of the offence committed and as such the Accused No. 1 and 2 ought not to be shown any leniency in awarding the punishment for commission of a serious offence such as bigamy.

Facts

i)  In the present case, the Appellant- Baba Natarajan Prasad had filed a Private Complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (CrPC) (Examination of complainant) against his Wife, i.e. the Respondent- M. Revathi for having married the Accused No. 2- P. Gunasekaran, during the pendency of the proceedings for dissolution of marriage between the Appellant and the Respondent in the Family Court, Coimbatore, which amounts to commission of a bigamous marriage under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC) (Marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife). The Complaint also arraigned the Respondent’s parents as Accused No. 3 and 4 for having abetted their Daughter-Accused No. 1 to commit the said offence.

ii) The Ld. Trial Court, Coimbatore convicted the Respondent- Accused No. 1 and the Accused No. 2 under Section 494 IPC and sentenced them to undergo one-year rigorous imprisonment each and imposed a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each. The Trial Court acquitted the Accused No. 3 and 4.

iii) Aggrieved by the Trial Court Order of Conviction, the Accused No. 1 and 2 filed Criminal Appeal No. 249/2019 and Criminal Appeal No. 250/2019 respectively before the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge-III, Coimbatore (Appellate Court).

iv) Further, the Appellant also filed Criminal Appeal No. 273/2019 against the Trial Court Order of Acquittal of Accused No. 3 and 4 and filed Criminal Appeal No. 304/2019 seeking enhancement of sentence imposed on the Accused No. 1 and 2 before the Appellate Court.

v) The Appellate Court, vide Common Order dated 19-04-2021, reversed the Trial Court Order of Conviction and thereby, acquitted the Accused No. 1 and 2, and further dismissed the Appeals filed by the Appellant.

vi)  Aggrieved by the Appellate Court’s Order dated 19-04-2021, the Appellant filed Criminal Appeal No. 635/2021 and Criminal Appeal No. 647/2021 against the Order of Acquittal of Accused No. 1 and 2 and filed Criminal Appeal No. 648/2021 against the Order dismissing his Appeals filed in the Appellate Court, before the Madras High Court. The Appellant further sought for enhancement of sentence imposed on Accused No. 1 and 2.

vii) The High Court, vide Common Order dated 26-08-2022, restored the Trial Court’s Order of Conviction in respect of the Accused No. 1 and confirmed the Appellate Court’s Order of Acquittal in respect of the Accused No. 2. However, the sentence imposed on the Accused No. 1 was not enhanced. In fact, the High Court sentenced the Accused No. 1 to undergo an ‘imprisonment till the rising of the court’ and directed both the Accused No. 1 and 2 to pay fine of Rs. 20,000/- each, out of which, Rs. 20,000/- is payable to the Appellant as compensation.

Supreme Court Observations

Aggrieved by the High Court Order dated 26-08-2022 that did not enhance the sentence imposed on the Accused No. 1, the Appellant filed SLP (Crl.) No. 11461 / 2022 before the Supreme Court that was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 2912 / 2024. Further, aggrieved by the High Court’s Order of Acquittal of the Accused No. 2, the Appellant filed SLP(Crl.) No. 11824 / 2022 before the Apex Court that was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 2913 / 2024. The Apex Court, vide Order dated 15-07-2024, made the following observations:

1)  That though the Legislature has viewed the offence of bigamy as a serious offence, Section 494 IPC does not prescribe any minimum sentence. The said provision only prescribes a maximum sentence of seven years of imprisonment with fine.

2) That in the present case, the High Court sentenced the Accused No. 1 to undergo ‘imprisonment till the rising of the court’. The Proviso to Section 418 (1) CrPC (Execution of sentence of imprisonment) states that “Provided that where the accused is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court, it shall not be necessary to prepare or forward a warrant to a jail, and the accused may be confined in such place as the Court may direct.”

3)  Thus, the Bench held that the High Court Order sentencing the Accused No. 1 to undergo ‘imprisonment till the rising of the court’ would be certainly intra vires, in terms of Section 494 IPC read with Section 418 (1) CrPC.

4) However, as held by the Supreme Court in earlier cases, the sentence awarded to a convict has to be proportional to the degree and gravity of the offence committed.

“The cardinal principle of sentencing policy is that the sentence imposed on an offender should reflect the crime he has committed and it should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence. This Court has repeatedly stressed the central role of proportionality in sentencing of offenders in numerous cases.”

5)  That in the present case, the Accused No. 1 had not only married the Accused No. 2 during the subsistence of her former marriage with the Appellant, but had also begotten a child through the Accused No. 2. Hence, the Bench held that the Accused No. 1 and 2 ought not to be shown any leniency in awarding the punishment for a serious offence such as bigamy under Section 494 IPC.

Conclusion

Thus, the Bench held that the Trial Court had struck a balance in fixing the term of one year as the corporeal sentence. However, in view of the fact that the child of the Accused No. 1 and 2 is only 6 years old, hence, the Bench modified the sentence imposed on the Accused No. 1 and 2 to six months of simple imprisonment each and reduced the fine from Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 2000/- each, as originally ordered by the Trial Court. Further, taking into consideration the fact that the Accused No. 1 and 2 have a minor child to take care of, the Apex Court directed the Accused No. 2 to first serve the sentence period, after completion of which, the Accused No. 1 would serve her sentence. As a result, the Appeals filed by the Appellant were allowed and the Trial Court Order of Conviction of the Accused No. 1 and 2 was modified as above.

 

Harini Daliparthy

Lead Senior Associate

The Indian Lawyer