The Supreme Court docket in a latest verdict held that bigamy is a critical offence, punishment for which can’t be a flea-bite sentence. The case pertained to the sentence awarded by the Madras Excessive Court docket to a girl and her second husband for marrying whereas her first marriage was nonetheless legally legitimate.
“We have now already famous that within the matter of awarding sentence for conviction of an offence which can influence the society, it isn’t advisable to let off an accused after conviction with a flea-bite sentence,” the highest court docket stated.
The case emerges from criticism by the primary husband towards the girl, her second husband for committing bigamy, and the girl’s dad and mom for abetting Bigamy by encouraging her to get married, whereas her first marriage was nonetheless legally legitimate.
The primary husband moved the apex court docket in August 22, towards the Madras excessive court docket verdict which lowered the sentence awarded to the accused by the tiral court docket to “imprisonment until the rising of the court docket.” The excessive court docket additionally aqcuitted the dad and mom.
Overtuning this excessive court docket order, the Supreme Court docket described this verdict as a “flea-bite sentence” insufficient for the gravity of the offence dedicated beneath Part 200 of CrPC and 494 of IPC.
“The allegation within the criticism was that the primary accused who’s his spouse, pending the proceedings for dissolution of their marriage between them earlier than the Household Court docket, Coimbatore, and through subsistence of their nuptial bond, married the second accused and that within the wedlock of the primary accused with the second accused a baby was born. Subsequently, the appellant accused them of committing bigamous marriage and the dad and mom of the primary accused had been accused of abetting them for committing the stated offence.”
The trial Court docket acquitted the dad and mom of the girl and convicted the Girl and her second husband beneath Part 494 I.P.C., and sentenced them to bear one yr rigorous imprisonment every and imposed a high-quality of Rs. 2,000/- every.
The Supreme Court docket in its July 15 order modified the time period of the sentence awarded to accused the girl and her second husband to 6 months every, making the character of the sentence as easy imprisonment for the stated interval.
“We additional modify the high-quality imposed by lowering the identical from Rs. 20,000/- every to Rs. 2,000/- every, as initially awarded by the trial Court docket. Evidently, that the default sentence subsequently, awarded by the trial Court docket i.e., to bear easy imprisonment for 3
months can be restored.
The court docket directed the accused to give up earlier than the trial court docket in order to serve out the unserved interval of sentence imposed on them by this judgment.
Nonetheless, in a primary, being attentive to the truth that the kid from the second marriage was simply 6 years of age, the highest court docket directed that first the second husband shall serve the sentence and as soon as he’s out, the girl can serve the sentence. The highest court docket clarified that the this association shall not be handled as a precedent because it was ordered in these particular circumstances.
“…firstly the second accused shall give up earlier than the trial Court docket, inside a interval of three weeks from right now to serve out the remainder of the sentence. Upon his launch from the jail, on struggling the sentence, the primary accused shall give up earlier than the Court docket to serve her remaining interval of sentence and such give up shall be made by the primary accused inside a interval of two weeks from the discharge of the second accused from the jail.”