LexBABA NATARAJAN PRASAD versus M. REVATHI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 781 : 2024 INSC 523 Baba Natarajan Prasad v. M. Revathi (Criminal Appeal No. 2912 of 2024) 15 July 2024 [C.T. Ravikumar* and Sanjay Kumar, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court had shown undeserving leniency and sympathy to accused Nos.1 and 2 by sentencing them to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- each, even after finding that they committed the serious offence of bigamy punishable u/s. 494 IPC; and whether an enhancement of sentence is called for. Headnotes† 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 * Author 782 [2024] 7 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports 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] Case Law Cited Gopal Lal v. State of Rajasthan [1979] 2 SCR 1171 : (1979) 2 SCC 170; State of Punjab v. Bawa Singh [2015] 1 SCR 709 : (2015) 3 SCC 441; Hazara Singh v. Raj Kumar & Ors. [2013] 5 SCR 979 : (2013) 9 SCC 516; Shailesh Jasvantbhai & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Ors. [2006] 1 SCR 477 : (2006) 2 SCC 359; Ahmed Hussein Vali Mohammed Saiyed & Anr. v. State of Gujarat [2009] 8 SCR 719 : (2009) 7 SCC 254; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bablu [2014] 9 SCR 467 : (2014) 9 SCC 281; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Surendra Singh [2014] 13 SCR 554 : (2015) 1 SCC 222; Dalbir Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab [1979] 3 SCR 1059 : (1979) 3 SCC 745; Shew Shankar Singh v. The State and Ors. MANU/WB/0349/1968; Assan Musaliarakath Kunhi Bava In Re. AIR 1929 Mad 226; The Public Prosecutor v. Kanniappan AIR [2024] 7 S.C.R. 783 Baba Natarajan Prasad v. M. Revathi 1955 Mad 424; Muthu Nadar, In Re. AIR 1945 Mad 313; Prahlad Dnyanoba Gajbhiye v. State of Maharashtra and Anr (1994) Cri LJ 255
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.