On 15 July 2024, the hon’ble Supreme Court, observing that the Court must impose a sentence commensurate with the gravity of the offence, enhanced the sentence imposed on a man and a woman for the offence of bigamy under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment of six months instead.
Background
■ Baba Natarajan Prasad (Appellant) filed a complaint under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), against M. Revathi (Respondent 1), accusing her of marrying another person during the subsistence of their marriage.
■ It was alleged that during the pendency of proceedings for the dissolution of marriage between Baba Natarajan Prasad and M. Revathi before the Coimbatore Family Court, Revathi married the co-accused (Respondent 2). A child was subsequently born in the wedlock.
■ The parents of Respondent 1 were also arraigned as co-accused on the ground of abetting them for committing the said offence.
■ The Trial Court acquitted the respondent’s parents and convicted Respondents 1 and 2, and sentenced them to undergo one-year rigorous imprisonment each along with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, they were ordered to suffer three months simple imprisonment.
■ In 2019, aggrieved by the conviction and the consequently imposed sentence, Respondents 1 and 2 filed two criminal appeals (Crl.Appeal Nos.249/2019 and 250/2019 respectively) in the Court of Additional District and Sessions, Coimbatore.
■ The Appellant also filed two appeals:
i. Crl.Appeal No.273/2019 – against the acquittal of the parents of Respondent 1.
ii. Crl.Appeal No.304/2019 – seeking enhancement of the sentence given to Respondents 1 and 2.
■ On 19 April 2021, in a common judgement, the Appellate Court dismissed the appeals of the appellant and acquitted the respondents.
■ In 2021, aggrieved by the said common judgement, the appellant filed:
i. Crl. Appeal Nos.635/2021 and 647/2021 – against the acquittal of Respondents 1 and 2.
ii. Crl. Appeal No.648/2021 – against the dismissal of his appeals.
■ In and vide the said appeals the appellant prayed for the Madras High Court to:
i. Set aside the common order dated 19 April 2021 reversing the conviction of Respondents 1 and 2 and confirming the acquittal of the parents of Respondent 1.
ii. Enhance the sentence of one-year rigorous imprisonment imposed on Respondents 1 and 2, contending that it was too inadequate.
■ On 26 August 2022, the Madras High Court upheld the order of the Trial Court. It, however, reduced the sentence of Respondents 1 and 2 to imprisonment till the rising of the Court.
■ Despite the restoration of the conviction entered against them by the Trial Court after reversing their acquittal by the First Appellate Court and the consequential imposition of sentence, the respondents did not challenge the common judgement by the High Court.
■ Against this, the appellant approached the Apex Court. The appellant assailed the judgement of the Madras High Court to the extent that it imposed only a flea bite sentence for the conviction of Respondents 1 and 2 for the offence under Section 494 of IPC, and confirmed the acquittal of the parents of Respondent 1
Main issues
1. Whether the High Court had shown undeserving leniency and sympathy to Respondents 1 and 2, even after finding that they had committed the serious offence of bigamy punishable under Section 494 I.P.C.?
2. Whether they were let off with a flea-bite sentence?
3. Whether an enhancement of the sentence was invited?
Judgement of the Court
■ On leniency and sympathy by the High Court:
The hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Madras High Court had shown undeserving leniency in the case on hand. The Court stated that though the imposition of a sentence fell within the realm of judicial discretion, the imposition of a sentence must be in tune with the rulePrinciple of Proportionality of proportionality and the nature of the offence.
The Court observed that though no minimum sentence was prescribed under Section 494 I.P.C.:
i. The maximum sentence of imprisonment prescribed thereunder for a conviction was 7 years of imprisonment of either description.
ii. The said offence was compoundable only by the husband or wife of the person so marrying, with the permission of the Court.
iii. The same offence under Section 494 I.P.C., with concealment of former marriage from person with whom subsequent marriage was contracted, would visit the offender with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years and with fine.
Thus, it was clear that the legislature viewed the offence of bigamy as a serious offence.
Accordingly, the circumstances obtained in the instant case would constrain it to hold that the imposition of ‘imprisonment till the rising of the Court’ was not a proper sentence falling in tune with the rule Principle of Proportionality of proportionality in providing punishment. It was, in fact, unconscionably lenient or a flea-bite sentence.
■ In absence of minimum sentence, there could not be a Flea-Bite sentence:
The Court rejected the argument that there was 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 placed reliance on the judgement in State of Karnataka v. Krishna alias Raju, and held 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.
The Court could, in the absence of any exceptional circumstances, impose sentence in tune with the rule of proportionality in providing punishment, though it fell within the realm of judicial discretion.
The Court further observed that the Trial Court had virtually struck a balance in fixing the term of one year as the corporeal sentence. In doing so, the Trial Court took into account the fact that:
i. The child born to Respondents 1 and 2 was aged less than two years (at that time).
ii. No minimum term of imprisonment was prescribed for the conviction under Section 494 IPC.
iii. The maximum sentence imposable for conviction thereunder was seven years.
■ On enhancement of sentence:
After taking into consideration the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was committed, the Court exercised its discretionary power and modified the term of the sentence awarded to Respondents 1 and 2 to 6 months each, and reduced the fine amount from Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 2,000/- each.
Furthermore, taking note of the fact that the child of Respondents 1 and 2 was presently aged only about 6 years, the Court ordered that
i. Firstly Respondent 2 shall surrender before the Trial Court, within a period of 3 weeks from the date of the judgement, to serve out the rest of the sentence.
ii. Upon his release from the jail, on suffering the sentence, Respondent 1 shall surrender before the Court to serve her remaining period of sentence and such surrender shall be made by her within a period of 2 weeks from the release of Respondent 2 from the jail.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the appeals.
Proportionality in Sentencing
The principle of proportionality in sentencing referred to the idea that the punishment for a crime should be proportional to the seriousness of the offence committed. This principle was rooted in the notion of fairness and justice and was a fundamental aspect of any legal system.
In order to ensure that sentences were proportional, many jurisdictions had established sentencing guidelines. These guidelines provided a framework for Judges and other decision-makers to determine appropriate sentences based on the specific circumstances of each case, including the severity of the crime and the offender’s criminal history.
Sentencing guidelines typically included a range of possible punishments for each type of offence, along with factors that should be considered when determining the appropriate sentence. These factors might include:
1. Aggravating circumstances: Aggravating circumstances referred to any factors or circumstances that could increase the severity or culpability of a wrongdoing or offence. These circumstances could be considered in legal or disciplinary proceedings, such as in criminal trials or in academic misconduct cases.
Examples of aggravating circumstances included premeditation, use of a weapon or violence, involvement of minors or vulnerable individuals, or a history of similar offences. In academic settings, aggravating circumstances could include plagiarism or cheating in a particularly blatant or intentional manner.
2. Mitigating circumstances: Mitigating circumstances referred to any factors or circumstances that could lessen the severity or culpability of a wrongdoing or offence. These circumstances could be considered in legal or disciplinary proceedings, such as in criminal trials or in academic misconduct cases.
Examples of mitigating circumstances included mental illness, coercion, duress, self-defence, etc.
3. Characteristics of offences: Most guideline systems contained criteria for grading the severity of offences. This rating was usually dependent on how the legislation defined the offence, not on how unoccupied, or how a specific person did a specific crime. Theft of an uninhabited structure, for example, would have been considered less severe than assault with a weapon.
4. Offender Traits: Offender features were characteristics that distinguished one offender from another. The number and kind of past offences (i.e., felonies, misdemeanours, juvenile adjudications) or if the offender was in custody at the time of the offence were just a few examples (e.g., probation or jail).
5. Any other relevant information.
By providing clear and consistent guidance on how sentences should be determined, sentencing guidelines helped to promote fairness and consistency in the legal system. They also helped to ensure that sentences were proportionate to the severity of the crime, which was an important aspect of promoting public safety and deterrence.
The 47th law Commission in 1972, headed by Mr Gajendra Gadkar, submitted a report for the requirements of sentencing where they stated several requirements to be considered before awarding sentencing. The Malimath Committee (The Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System), 2003, had also suggested the urgent need of sentencing guidelines. They further suggested the formation of a Statutory Committee. This was also supported by the Madhava Menon Committee (Committee on Draft National Policy on Criminal Justice), which advised for uniform statutory sentencing guidelines.
Principles governing proportionality of punishments
Citing various Indian and foreign decisions, the hon’ble Supreme Court, in Vikram Singh v. Union of India, laid down the principles governing proportionality of punishments:
i. Punishments had to be proportionate to the nature and gravity of the offences for which the same were prescribed.
ii. Prescribing punishments was the function of the legislature and not the Courts’.
iii. The legislature was presumed to be supremely wise and aware of the needs of the people and the measures that were necessary to meet those needs.
iv. Courts showed deference to the legislative will and wisdom, and were slow in upsetting the enacted provisions dealing with the quantum of punishment prescribed for different offences.
v. Courts, however, had the jurisdiction to interfere when the punishment prescribed was so outrageously disproportionate to the offence or so inhuman or brutal that the same could not be accepted by any standard of decency.
vi. Absence of objective standards for determining the legality of the prescribed sentence made the job of the Court reviewing the punishment difficult.
vii. Courts could not interfere with the prescribed punishment only because the punishment was perceived to be excessive.
viii. In dealing with questions of proportionality of sentences, capital punishment was considered to be different in kind and degree from a sentence of imprisonment. The result was that while there were several instances when capital punishment had been considered to be disproportionate to the offence committed, there were very few and rare cases of sentences of imprisonment being held disproportionate.
In conclusion, each case was unique, and the Court had to consider all relevant factors when determining an appropriate punishment. Ultimately, it was important to remember that the goal of punishment was not only to punish the offender but also to deter others from committing similar crimes. The punishment had to be proportional to the offence and serve the interests of justice. read more information CLICK HERE