The Supreme Court on Monday stated that a sentence of imprisonment for a day until the rising of the court is too lenient for those convicted of bigamy.
A Bench of Justices CT Ravikumar and PV Sanjay Kumar emphasized that the principle of proportionality must be adhered to when imposing punishments to promote and maintain order in society.
“We have no option but to hold that the imposition of a sentence of ‘imprisonment till the rising of the court’ upon conviction for an offence under Section 494 IPC was unconscionably lenient or a flea-bite sentence,” the Court said.
These observations were made while hearing an appeal against a Madras High Court verdict that had set aside the prison sentence imposed on two individuals convicted of bigamy.
The appellant’s complaint alleged that his wife, the first accused, married the second accused during the pendency of divorce proceedings before a family court.
The appellant, the first husband, contended that the woman’s second marriage took place while her nuptial bond with him was still valid.
The appellant accused his wife and her second husband of committing bigamy and the parents of the first accused of abetting the offence.
The trial court acquitted the parents of the first accused but convicted the first and second accused under Section 494 IPC, sentencing them to one year of rigorous imprisonment each and imposing a fine of ₹2,000.
On appeal, a Sessions Court acquitted the two accused, prompting the appellant to approach the High Court.
The High Court upheld the acquittal of the parents but overturned the acquittal of the first and second accused, sentencing them to imprisonment until the rising of the court and a fine of ₹20,000.
The appellant then moved the Supreme Court against this sentence.
The top court noted that the legislature views bigamy as a serious offence due to its societal impact.
“In the matter of awarding sentences for conviction of an offence that may impact society, it is not advisable to let off an accused after conviction with a flea-bite sentence. In the absence of any exceptional circumstances, courts must impose sentences in tune with the rule of proportionality in providing punishment, though it falls within the realm of judicial discretion,” it observed.
The appeal was eventually allowed.
The imprisonment was enhanced to six months’ simple imprisonment, including the period already served. The fine was reduced from ₹20,000 to ₹2,000 each.
The Court took into consideration the fact that the accused have a six-year-old child to care for. Therefore, the man was directed to serve his sentence first, followed by the woman.
“In case the accused Nos.1 and 2 do not surrender in terms of this judgment on their own, the trial court shall take appropriate steps in accordance with the law to place them in custody and ensure they serve the sentence,” it clarified.
Senior Advocate R Basant appeared for the appellant (first husband), while Advocate Ratnakar Das appeared for the wife.
