Punishment of ‘imprisonment till the rising of the court’ is a flea-bite sentence for those convicted for an offence of bigamy: Supreme Court

While hearing a case related to an offence of bigamy on July 15, 2024, the Supreme Court (SC) bench constituting Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice CT Ravikumar observed that the punishment of ‘imprisonment till the rising of the court’ is a flea-bite sentence for those convicted for an offence of bigamy. The bench enhanced the sentence of the accused wife’s parents who abetted her daughter to perform bigamy. The SC bench observed, “after characterizing the punishment as unconscionably lenient or a ‘flea-bite’ sentence, that 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. In short, there cannot be any doubt with respect to the position that in imposing sentence the Court is to take into consideration the nature of the offence, circumstances under which it was committed, degree of deliberation shown by the offender, antecedents of the offender upto the time of sentence, etc., and, in the absence of any exceptional circumstances, impose sentence in tune with the rule of proportionality in providing punishment though it falls within the realm of judicial discretion.” 

In this case, the main accused (wife) solemnized a second marriage during the subsistence of her first nuptial bond with (appellant), and a child was born from her second marriage. Therefore, the appellant accused them of committing bigamous marriage and the parents of the wife were accused of abetting them for committing the said offence. The wife committed an offence under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), bigamy, and her parents abetted to perform the bigamous marriage. While hearing the matter, the SC bench observed, “When once it is found that an offence under Section 494 I.P.C., is a serious offence, the circumstances obtaining, in this case, would constrain us to hold that the imposition of ‘imprisonment till the rising of the court’ is not a proper sentence falling in tune with the rule of proportionality in providing punishment…” It said, “We have no option but to hold that imposition of sentence of ‘imprisonment till the rising of the court’ upon conviction for an offence under Section 494 I.P.C., on them was unconscionably lenient or a flea-bite sentence.” 

After hearing the matter, the SC bench said that “the trial Court had virtually struck a balance in fixing the term of one year as the corporeal sentence. But then, taking note of the fact that the said child is now aged only about six years and the sentence for the conviction under Section 494 I.P.C., can be of both descriptions. We think it appropriate to use our judicial discretion to modify the sentence imposed under the impugned judgment. Accordingly, we modify the term of the sentence awarded to accused Nos.1 and 2 for the conviction under Section 494 I.P.C., to six months each, making the nature of the sentence as simple imprisonment for the said period. We further modify the fine imposed by reducing the same from Rs. 20,000/- each to Rs. 2,000/- each, as originally awarded by the trial Court.”