Sentence/Sentencing – Enhancement of – High Court after restoring conviction for the offence of bigamy punishable u/s. 494 IPC, sentenced accused Nos.1 and 2 to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- each – Correctness:
Held: 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 – Reading of ss. 494 and 495, would reveal that the legislature viewed the offence of bigamy as a serious offence – Prescription of maximum corporeal sentence imposable u/ss. 494 and 495, would suggest that the offence u/s. 494, has to be treated as a serious offence – Thus, the imposition of ‘imprisonment till the rising of the court’ not a proper sentence falling in tune with the rule of proportionality in providing punishment – Imposition of sentence of ‘imprisonment till the rising of the court’ upon conviction for an offence u/s. 494, on them was unconscionably lenient or a flea-bite sentence – It is evident that the first accused married the second accused while the marriage between the appellant and the first accused was subsisting and not only that, during its subsistence, she had also begotten a child through the second accused – Taking into account all the circumstances, it can be said that undeserving leniency was shown – However, taking note of the fact that the said child is now aged only about six years and the sentence for the conviction u/s. 494, can be of both descriptions – Using judicial discretion, the term of the sentence awarded to accused Nos.1 and 2 for the conviction u/s. 494, is modified to six months each, making the nature of the sentence as simple imprisonment for the said period – Fine imposed is modified by reducing the same from Rs. 20,000/- each to Rs. 2,000/- each – Taking note of the fact that the child is now aged only about 6 years, firstly the second accused would serve its remaining sentence and upon his release, the first accused would serve her remaining period of sentence – Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 494, 495. [Paras 13-20]
Sentence/Sentencing – Imposition of sentence of ‘imprisonment till the rising of the court’ – Permissibility: Held: 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 provision – Proviso to s. 418(1) CrPC, together with the penal provision u/s. 494 IPC, prescribing no minimum imprisonment, but only the maximum, would definitely make imposition of ‘imprisonment till the rising of the court’ intra vires. [Paras 16, 17]
Sentence/Sentencing – Imposition of punishment – Rule of proportionality – To be followed to promote and bring order and orderliness in society – Discussed. [Paras 1-4]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.