'Punishment Must Be In Proportion To Gravity Of Offence', Supreme Court Enhances Parents' Sentence For Abetting Daughter's Bigamous Marriage

Observing that the Court must impose a sentence commensurate with the gravity of the offence, the Supreme Court on Monday (July 15) enhanced the sentence imposed on the wife's parents who abetted her daughter to perform a second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage.

The wife's parents were subjected to undergo meager imprisonment till the rising of the court. After taking into consideration the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was committed, the bench comprising Justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar enhanced the sentence of the wife's parents and sentenced them to undergo an imprisonment of six months instead.

"When once it is found that an offence under Section 494 I.P.C., is a serious offence, the circumstances obtaining in this case would constrain us to hold that the imposition of 'imprisonment till the rising of the court' is not a proper sentence falling in tune with the rule of proportionality in providing punishment as mentioned hereinbefore.", the Judgment authored by Justice CT Ravikumar observed.

Background

The main accused wife has solemnized a second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage, and out of wedlock, a child has been born from the second marriage. The factum of subsistence of a first marriage was concealed from the second husband. Allegations were levied against the wife's parents for abetting her daughter to perform a second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage.

In other words, the wife has committed an offence of performing a bigamous marriage under Section 494 of IPC and her parents have abetted to perform a bigamous marriage.

The trial court has convicted the wife for committing a bigamous marriage and her parents for abetting her daughter to do such an offence.

The complainant-second husband challenged the sentence imposed on the parents to suffer imprisonment till the rise of the court.

In Absence of Minimum Sentence There Cannot Be Flea-Bite Sentence

The Supreme Court rejected the argument that there is no bar for the courts to decide a punishment for an offence since no minimum sentence was prescribed for the offence committed under Section 494 of IPC.

The Court upon placing reliance on the judgment of State of Karnataka v. Krishna alias Raju, (1987) 1 SCC 538 said that non-prescribing of the minimum sentence would not permit the courts to impose a flea-bite sentence without looking into the nature of the offence, circumstances under which it was committed, degree of deliberation shown by the offender, antecedents of the offender up to the time of sentence, etc.

"This Court, while enhancing the sentence observed, after characterizing 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.", the court said in Krishna alias Raju.

In other words, the Court stated that though the imposition of a sentence falls within the realm of judicial discretion, the imposition of a sentence must be in tune with the rule of proportionality with the nature of the offence.

"In short, 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 court said.

“Thus, 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 above rule of proportionality in providing punishment is not failed as otherwise it will impact the 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.”, the Court added.

Counsels For Petitioner(s) Mr. Basanth, R, Sr. Adv. Mr. H.S. Mohamed Rafi, Adv. Mr. A. Lakshminarayanan, AOR Mr. Akshay Sahay, Adv.

Counsels For Respondent(s) Mr. Ratnakar Das, Adv. Mr. G.Sivabalamurugan, AOR Mr. Selvaraj Mahendran, Adv. Mr. C.Adhikesavan, Adv. Mr. P.V.harikrishnan, Adv. Mr. Karunakar Mahalik, AOR

Case Details: Baba Natarajan Prasad Versus M. Revathi

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 474

Click here to read/download the judgment