New Delhi: The Supreme Court has said that the imposition of sentences on offenders is not to satisfy the society but it is about the rule of proportionality to promote orderliness in society, while sentencing a woman and her second husband to six months in jail each for committing bigamy.
Against the backdrop of a couple having a six-year-old child, the apex court, taking a compassionate view in the matter, adopted a unique form of sentencing for the couple, to ensure that a parent remains with the child while the other is behind bars.
A bench comprising justices C T Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar ordered the second husband should first surrender to serve his 6-month sentence and after the completion of his sentence, the woman is to surrender within two weeks to serve her 6-month sentence. The apex court made it clear that this arrangement shall not be treated as a precedent as it was ordered in special circumstances.
The bench, in a judgement delivered on July 15, said the clamour or claim for comeuppance viz., deserved punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offence is a continuous and continuing demand based on civic sense and unfailing in categories of serious offences where more than individual interest is also involved.
The bench noted that the rule of proportionality in providing punishment should not fail as otherwise it will impact society.
“At the same time, we may hasten to add that we shall not be understood to have held that imposition of sentence on such offenders shall be to satisfy the society and we are only on the point that following the rule of proportionality in imposing punishment would promote and bring order and orderliness in society”, said Justice Ravikumar, who authored the judgement on behalf of the bench.
The case is regarding a woman who married again, while her first marriage was legally valid. The apex court’s judgement came on an appeal filed by her first husband of the woman, who moved the apex court assailing an August 2022 judgement by the Madras High Court.
The high court had sentenced the woman and her second husband to “imprisonment till the rising of the court”. Against the gravity of the offence, the apex court said the sentence was “unconscionably lenient or a flea-bite sentence”.
The apex court stressed that it is the solemn duty of the court to strike a proper balance awarding a sentence proportionate to the gravity of the offence committed by the accused concerned upon his conviction for serious offence(s).
The bench said it is a fact that earlier certain high courts maintained a view that sentencing an accused to undergo ‘imprisonment till the rising of the court’ would be no sentence at all, according to law.
“A reading of Sections 494 and 495 I.P.C., would reveal that the legislature viewed the offence of bigamy as a serious offence. 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 marrying with the permission of the Court”, noted the bench.
The bench said the same offence under Section 494 I.P.C.(bigamy), with concealment of former marriage from a 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 a fine. This offence, which is an aggravated form of bigamy, is non-compoundable, it added. The penal provision has been retained under Section 82 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which replaced the IPC on July 1.
Citing Adamji Umar Dalal v. State of Bombay, the bench said it is not oblivious to its decision, which held that zeal to crush the evil should not carry the court away from its judicial mind, and the sentence should not be so unduly harsh as to defeat the ends of justice.
“But then, the decision in State of Karnataka v. Krishna alias Raju is also equally relevant. This court, while enhancing the sentence observed, after characterising the punishment as unconscionably lenient or a ‘flea-bite’ sentence, that consideration of undue sympathy in such cases will lead to miscarriage of justice and undermine the confidence of the public in the efficacy of the criminal justice system”, noted the bench.
The bench said the court must not only keep in view the rights of the victim but also the society at large while considering the imposition of appropriate punishment. “A meager sentence imposed solely on account of lapse of time without considering the degree of the offence will be counterproductive in the long run and against the interest of the society”, it added.
Setting aside the high court judgement, the apex court said: “It is evident that the first accused (woman) married the second accused while the marriage between the appellant (first husband) and her was subsisting. Not only that, during its subsistence, she had also begotten a child with the second accused. Taking into account all the circumstances, it can be said that undeserving leniency was shown in the case on hand”.
