Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has on July 15, 2024 said that an offence of bigamy under Section 494 IPC, is a serious offence, so the imposition of ‘imprisonment till the rising of the court’ is not a proper sentence in tune with the rule of proportionality.

A bench of Justices C T Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar referred to a series of judgments by the High Court to say that now it cannot be said that imposing a sentence of ‘imprisonment till the rising of the court’ is impermissible or an action amounting to evasion of statutory provisions. 

"The proviso to Section 418(1), CrPC, together with the penal provision under Section 494 IPC, prescribing no minimum imprisonment, but only the maximum, would definitely make imposition of ‘imprisonment till the rising of the court’ intra vires," the bench said in a judgment.

However, to a question whether such a "flea-bite" sentence is sufficient when a conviction is entered under Section 494 IPC, only because no minimum sentence is prescribed thereunder, the bench said, "In the matter of awarding sentence for conviction of an offence which may impact the society, it is not advisable to let off an accused after conviction with a flea-bite sentence."

The bench emphasised that there cannot be any doubt with respect to the position that in imposing sentence the court is to take into consideration the nature of the offence, circumstances under which it was committed, degree of deliberation shown by the offender, antecedents of the offender upto the time of sentence, etc, and, in the absence of any exceptional circumstances, impose sentence in tune with the rule of proportionality in providing punishment though it falls within the realm of judicial discretion.

The bench was considering an appeal against the Madras High Court's judgement which overturned acquittal of a man and his wife by the first appellate court but reduced their sentence till the rising of the court.

The trial court had convicted the man and his wife under Section 494 of the IPC and sentenced them to one years rigorous imprisonment each with a fine of Rs 2,000 only on each of them. 

The man and second wife was prosecuted by his previous wife for bigamy during the subsistence of their nuptial bond. The man also begot a child from the second marriage.

Dealing with an appeal for enhancement of sentence, the bench said reading of Sections 494 and 495 IPC would reveal that the legislature viewed the offence of bigamy as a serious offence. 

Though no minimum sentence is prescribed under Section 494 IPC, the maximum sentence of imprisonment prescribed thereunder for a conviction thereunder is seven years of imprisonment of either description, it noted.

The said offence is compoundable only by the husband or wife of the person so marrying with the permission of the court, the bench pointed out. 

The same offence under Section 494 IPC, 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. This offence, which is an aggravated form of bigamy, is non compoundable, the bench pointed out.

In the case at hand, the bench noted undeserving leniency was shown. 

"But then, taking into account the fact that the child born to the first and second accused was aged less than two years... we are of the considered view that the trial Court had virtually struck a balance in fixing the term of one year as the corporeal sentence," the bench said.

The court, however, modified the sentence to six months imprisonment each, considering the fact the child born to them was only of six years of age.

"Taking note of the fact that the child of accused Nos 1 (woman) and 2 (man) 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 three 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 two weeks from the release of the second accused from the jail," the bench said.

The court clarified that this arrangement shall not be treated as a precedent as it was ordered in special circumstances.