Background: The case revolves around an appellant whose wife allegedly remarried during the subsistence of their marriage, thus committing bigamy under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The trial court initially sentenced the woman and her second husband to one year of rigorous imprisonment, which was later overturned by a sessions court, leading to their acquittal. Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the High Court, which reinstated the conviction but reduced the sentence to imprisonment till the rising of the court and imposed a fine of ₹20,000.
Supreme Court Hearing: A bench comprising Justices CT Ravikumar and PV Sanjay Kumar presided over the case. The central issue was whether the reduced sentence by the High Court was appropriate for the offense of bigamy. The appellant, represented by Senior Advocate R Basant, argued that the sentence was disproportionately lenient given the societal impact of bigamy.
Court's Observations: The Supreme Court emphasized the principle of proportionality in sentencing, highlighting that lenient punishments for serious offenses could undermine the legal system and societal order. The Court pointed out that bigamy is considered a strict offense by the legislature due to its potential to disrupt familial and social structures.
Legal Reasoning: The Court observed that the High Court's decision to impose a sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the court was "unconscionably lenient" and akin to a "flea-bite" sentence. Such a light punishment fails to reflect the severity of the offense and does not serve as a deterrent. The Supreme Court stressed that sentences should be proportionate to the offense's gravity, especially when the offense has broader societal implications.
Judgment: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, enhancing the sentence to six months of simple imprisonment, taking into account the time already served. The fine was also reduced from ₹20,000 to ₹2,000 each. Recognizing the couple's responsibility towards their six-year-old child, the Court ordered that the sentences be served consecutively, starting with the second husband followed by the wife. The Court also directed that if the convicts did not surrender voluntarily, the trial court should take appropriate steps to ensure they serve their sentences.
Conclusion: This landmark judgment by the Supreme Court reinforces the importance of proportionate sentencing in maintaining the integrity of the judicial system and societal order. By emphasizing the need for appropriate punishment for serious offenses like bigamy, the Court has set a precedent for future cases, ensuring that justice is not only done but also seen to be done.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.