‘Punishment should be according to the gravity of the crime’…and the Supreme Court increased the sentence of the guilty couple

New Delhi : A woman got married for the second time while her first marriage was still valid. Her parents also supported her. The woman also had a child from the second marriage but the second husband was unaware of his/her wife’s first marriage. When the secret was revealed, he/she filed a case against his/her wife as well as her parents. The parents were accused of instigating their daughter to get married for the second time while her first marriage was still in effect. In this case, the parents were also convicted by the court but the punishment was minor. On the day of sentencing, they were sentenced to imprisonment till the completion of the court proceedings. The man challenged the punishment calling it minor. Now the Supreme Court has sentenced the wife’s parents to 6 months imprisonment, calling the punishment less than the severity of the crime. The Supreme Court gave this verdict on Monday. The woman’s parents had helped their daughter get married for the second time while her first marriage was still in force. The Supreme Court accepted that the punishment should be given considering the severity of the crime. Earlier, the lower court had sentenced the woman’s parents to imprisonment only till the completion of the court proceedings. The bench of Justice CT Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Kumar enhanced the sentence of the wife’s parents to 6 months considering the nature of the crime and the manner in which it was committed.

The judgment written by Justice CT Ravikumar said, ‘Once it is found that the offence under Section 494 of the IPC is a serious offence, the circumstances present in this case compel us to hold that ‘imprisonment till the end of the court’ is not an appropriate punishment. It is not in accordance with the rule of proportionality in sentencing.’

In this case, the woman had entered into a second marriage while her first marriage was still going on. A child was also born from the second marriage. The first marriage was concealed from the second husband. The woman’s parents were accused of helping their daughter to get married for the second time while her first marriage was still going on. The woman committed the crime of bigamy under section 494 of the IPC and her parents instigated her to do so. The trial court had held the wife guilty of bigamy and her parents guilty of instigating their daughter to do so. The complainant-second husband had challenged the sentence awarded to the parents.

The woman’s parents argued in the Supreme Court that there is no minimum sentence prescribed for the crime under Section 494 of the IPC. But the apex court rejected this argument. The Supreme Court, relying on the decision of State of Karnataka vs Krishna alias Raju, (1987) 1 SCC 538, said that the absence of a minimum sentence does not mean that the courts should give a minor sentence without considering the nature of the crime.

In the Krishna alias Raju case, the court had termed the sentence as too lenient or ‘modest’ and said that excessive sympathy in such cases would reduce public confidence in the criminal justice system. Thus, the court said that even though sentencing is a matter of judicial discretion, the punishment should be proportionate to the nature of the crime. The punishment should be proportionate to the gravity of the crime.

The court said, ‘In short, there is no doubt that while sentencing, the court has to take into account the nature of the crime, the circumstances under which it was committed. The thinking shown by the offender, his/her past record etc. have to be taken into account. In the absence of any exceptional circumstances, the rule of proportionality should be followed while sentencing.’