Supreme Court Enhances Sentence in Bigamy Case: Baba Natarajan Prasad vs. M. Revathi (2024)

Date of the Judgment: 15 July 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 523

Judges: C.T. Ravikumar, J., Sanjay Kumar, J.

Can a court impose a minimal sentence for bigamy, a serious offense under Indian law? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where the High Court had reduced the sentence for bigamy to imprisonment till the rising of the court. The Supreme Court, in this judgment, examined the principle of proportionality in sentencing, emphasizing that punishment should reflect the gravity of the offense. This case involves an appeal against a High Court decision that had reduced the sentence for bigamy, leading the Supreme Court to consider whether the punishment was adequate.

The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Kumar, with Justice C.T. Ravikumar authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The appellant, Baba Natarajan Prasad, filed a private complaint against his wife, M. Revathi (accused No. 1), and another individual (accused No. 2) for committing bigamy under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The complaint alleged that while divorce proceedings were pending, M. Revathi married accused No. 2 and had a child with him. The parents of M. Revathi were also accused of abetting the offense.

The trial court convicted accused Nos. 1 and 2, sentencing them to one year of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000 each. However, the first appellate court acquitted the accused. Subsequently, the High Court of Judicature at Madras reversed the acquittal and restored the conviction, but reduced the sentence to imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs. 20,000 each.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court convicted the accused Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing them to one year of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000 each. The first appellate court reversed this decision and acquitted the accused. The High Court of Judicature at Madras, however, overturned the appellate court’s decision, restoring the conviction. Despite restoring the conviction, the High Court reduced the sentence to imprisonment till the rising of the court and a fine of Rs. 20,000 each, with a portion of the fine to be paid as compensation to the appellant. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court seeking enhancement of the sentence.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provision in question is Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with the offense of bigamy. It states:

“494. Marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife.—Whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such husband or wife, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

The court also considered Section 495 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which addresses bigamy with concealment of the former marriage:

“495. Same offence with concealment of former marriage from person with whom subsequent marriage is contracted.—Whoever commits the offence defined in the last preceding section having concealed from the person with whom the subsequent marriage is contracted, the fact of the former marriage, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

Additionally, the court referred to Section 418(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which pertains to the execution of sentences of imprisonment:

“418. Execution of sentence of imprisonment.—(1) Where the accused is sentenced to imprisonment for life or to imprisonment for a term in cases other than those provided for by section 413, the Court passing the sentence shall forthwith forward a warrant to the jail or other place in which he is, or is to be, confined, and, unless the accused is already confined in such jail or other place, shall forward him to such jail or other place, with the warrant: Provided that where the accused is sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court, it shall not be necessary to prepare or forward a warrant to a jail, and the accused may be confined in such place as the Court may direct.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the trial court had correctly appreciated the evidence and convicted accused Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• The High Court rightly reversed the First Appellate Court’s decision, which was based on surmises and conjectures.
• The appellant contended that the High Court erred in not restoring the original sentence imposed by the trial court, arguing that the reduced sentence was unduly lenient and did not reflect the seriousness of the offense.
• The appellant argued that the offense of bigamy is a serious offense and deserves no leniency, relying on the decision in Gopal Lal v. State of Rajasthan [1979] 2 SCC 170, where the Supreme Court held that a lenient view should not be taken in cases of bigamy.
• The appellant emphasized that the High Court’s sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the court was insufficient and did not align with the principle of proportionality in sentencing.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondents (accused Nos. 1 and 2) did not challenge their conviction under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, by the High Court.
• They contended that no interference with the High Court’s order was warranted, essentially accepting the reduced sentence.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether the High Court was right in not restoring the sentence imposed for the conviction under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, by the trial court, after accepting the appellant’s contentions and reversing the acquittal of accused Nos. 1 and 2.
2. Whether the High Court had shown undeserving leniency and sympathy to accused Nos. 1 and 2 even after finding that they had committed the serious offense of bigamy punishable under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and whether an enhancement of sentence is warranted.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• State of Punjab v. Bawa Singh [2015] 3 SCC 441 – The court reiterated the duty of every court to award proper sentences proportionate to the offense and consider the rights of the victim and society.
• Hazara Singh v. Raj Kumar & Ors. [2013] 9 SCC 516 – The court emphasized that sentences should be proportionate to the nature and magnitude of the offense.
• Shailesh Jasvantbhai & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Ors. [2006] 2 SCC 359 – The court noted that the sentencing system should meet the challenges of society and that undue sympathy would undermine public confidence in the justice system.
• Ahmed Hussein Vali Mohammed Saiyed & Anr. v. State of Gujarat [2009] 7 SCC 254 – This case was referred to in the context of the principles of sentencing.
• State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bablu [2014] 9 SCC 281 – This case emphasized the need for adequate and proportionate punishment.
• State of Madhya Pradesh v. Surendra Singh [2015] 1 SCC 222 – This case reiterated the importance of imposing sentences that align with the gravity of the crime.
• Dalbir Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab [1979] 3 SCC 745 – The court noted that decisions on sentencing should not be regarded as precedents.
• Gopal Lal v. State of Rajasthan [1979] 2 SCC 170 – The court held that a lenient view should not be taken in cases of bigamy.
• Shew Shankar Singh v. The State and Ors. [MANU/WB/0349/1968] – This case held that imprisonment till the rising of the court is not a proper sentence.
• Assan Musaliarakath Kunhi Bava In Re [AIR 1929 Mad 226] – This case held that imprisonment till the rising of the court is not a proper sentence.
• The Public Prosecutor v. Kanniappan [AIR 1955 Mad 424] – This case held that imprisonment till the rising of the court is not a proper sentence.
• Muthu Nadar, In Re [AIR 1945 Mad 313] – This case held that the court has full discretion to pass a sentence of imprisonment for any period if it would be fit.
• Prahlad Dnyanoba Gajbhiye v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. [1994] Cri LJ 2555 – This case held that every confinement of a person is imprisonment.
• Raveendran v. Food Inspector, Pinarayi Panchayat [1977 KLT 155] – This case held that detention till the rising of the court is a form of simple imprisonment.
• Adamji Umar Dalal v. State of Bombay [AIR 1952 SC 14] – The court noted that the zeal to crush evil should not carry the Court away from its judicial mind.
• State of Karnataka v. Krishna alias Raju [1987] 1 SCC 538 – The court emphasized that undue sympathy in sentencing can lead to miscarriage of justice.

Statutes:

• Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Defines the offense of bigamy.
• Section 495 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Defines the offense of bigamy with concealment of the former marriage.
• Section 418(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Pertains to the execution of sentences of imprisonment.

Authorities Table

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court relied on State of Punjab v. Bawa Singh [2015] 3 SCC 441* to emphasize that courts must impose sentences proportionate to the crime.
• The Court referred to Hazara Singh v. Raj Kumar & Ors. [2013] 9 SCC 516* and Shailesh Jasvantbhai & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Ors. [2006] 2 SCC 359* to reiterate the principle of proportionality in sentencing and the need for the sentencing system to meet societal challenges.
• The Court cited Gopal Lal v. State of Rajasthan [1979] 2 SCC 170* to support its view that a lenient approach is not appropriate in cases of bigamy.
• The Court distinguished the views of the High Courts in Shew Shankar Singh v. The State and Ors. [MANU/WB/0349/1968]*, Assan Musaliarakath Kunhi Bava In Re [AIR 1929 Mad 226]*, and The Public Prosecutor v. Kanniappan [AIR 1955 Mad 424]*, which held that imprisonment till the rising of the court is not a proper sentence. The Court clarified that such a sentence is permissible under Section 418(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, but is not sufficient for serious offenses.
• The Court referred to Muthu Nadar, In Re [AIR 1945 Mad 313]*, Prahlad Dnyanoba Gajbhiye v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. [1994] Cri LJ 2555*, and Raveendran v. Food Inspector, Pinarayi Panchayat [1977 KLT 155]* to highlight that imprisonment till the rising of the court is a form of simple imprisonment.
• The Court considered Adamji Umar Dalal v. State of Bombay [AIR 1952 SC 14]* to emphasize that the sentence should not be unduly harsh, and State of Karnataka v. Krishna alias Raju [1987] 1 SCC 538* to highlight that undue sympathy can lead to miscarriage of justice.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s decision to reduce the sentence to imprisonment till the rising of the court was not proportionate to the gravity of the offense of bigamy. The Court emphasized that the offense under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is a serious offense, and the punishment should reflect this. The Court noted that while imprisonment till the rising of the court is a permissible form of sentence, it is not sufficient in cases of serious offenses like bigamy. The Court observed that the High Court had shown undue leniency to the accused, undermining public confidence in the criminal justice system.

The Supreme Court modified the sentence imposed by the High Court, enhancing it to six months of simple imprisonment for each accused, while reducing the fine from Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 2,000 each, and restoring the default sentence of three months simple imprisonment.

“…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…”

“…it is the solemn duty of the Court to strike a proper balance awarding sentence proportionate to the gravity of the offence committed by the accused concerned upon his conviction for serious offence(s).”

“…consideration of undue sympathy in such cases will lead to miscarriage of justice and undermine confidence of the public in the efficacy of the criminal justice system.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle of proportionality in sentencing. The Court emphasized that the punishment must be commensurate with the gravity of the offense. Several factors weighed heavily in the Court’s decision:

• Seriousness of Bigamy: The Court recognized bigamy as a serious offense under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which warrants a punishment that reflects its severity.
• Need for Proportionality: The Court stressed that sentences must be proportionate to the offense, ensuring that the punishment is neither too lenient nor too harsh.
• Public Confidence in Justice System: The Court highlighted that lenient sentences for serious crimes undermine public confidence in the efficacy of the criminal justice system.
• Facts of the Case: The Court considered the circumstances of the case, including the fact that the first accused married the second accused while her marriage with the appellant was subsisting and had a child with the second accused.
• Previous Rulings: The Court relied on precedents that emphasized the need for proportionate and adequate punishment, particularly in cases of bigamy.
• Balancing Factors: While enhancing the sentence, the Court also considered the age of the child born to the accused and the absence of a minimum sentence for the offense under Section 494 I.P.C.

The Court aimed to strike a balance between ensuring that the punishment was adequate and not excessively harsh, taking into account all relevant factors and the need to maintain public confidence in the justice system.

Sentiment Analysis Table

Fact:Law Ratio Table

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• Proportionality in Sentencing: Courts must ensure that sentences are proportionate to the gravity of the offense.
• Bigamy as a Serious Offense: Bigamy under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is considered a serious offense that warrants an adequate punishment.
• Public Confidence: Lenientsentences for serious crimes undermine public confidence in the justice system.
• Imprisonment Till Rising of Court: While permissible, this sentence is not sufficient for serious offenses like bigamy.
• Balancing Factors: Courts must consider all relevant factors, including the seriousness of the offense, while ensuring that the punishment is not unduly harsh.
• Enhancement of Sentence: The Supreme Court can enhance sentences imposed by lower courts if they are deemed inadequate.