The Supreme Court in a recent verdict held that bigamy is a serious offence, punishment for which cannot be a flea-bite sentence. The case pertained to the sentence awarded by the Madras High Court to a woman and her second husband for marrying while her first marriage was still legally valid.
"We have already noted that in the matter of awarding sentence for conviction of an offence which may impact the society, it is not advisable to let off an accused after conviction with a flea-bite sentence," the top court said.
The case emerges from complaint by the first husband against the woman, her second husband for committing bigamy, and the woman's parents for abetting Bigamy by encouraging her to get married, while her first marriage was still legally valid.
The first husband moved the apex court in August 22, against the Madras high court verdict which reduced the sentence awarded to the accused by the tiral court to “imprisonment till the rising of the court.” The high court also aqcuitted the parents.
Overtuning this high court order, the Supreme Court described this verdict as a “flea-bite sentence” inadequate for the gravity of the offence committed under Section 200 of CrPC and 494 of IPC.
"The allegation in the complaint was that the first accused who is his wife, pending the proceedings for dissolution of their marriage between them before the Family Court, Coimbatore, and during subsistence of their nuptial bond, married the second accused and that in the wedlock of the first accused with the second accused a child was born. Therefore, the appellant accused them of committing bigamous marriage and the parents of the first accused were accused of abetting them for committing the said offence."
The trial Court acquitted the parents of the woman and convicted the Woman and her second husband under Section 494 I.P.C., and sentenced them to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment each and imposed a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each.
The Supreme Court in its July 15 order modified the term of the sentence awarded to accused the woman and her second husband 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. Needless to say, that the default sentence therefore, awarded by the trial Court i.e., to undergo simple imprisonment for three
months is also restored.
The court directed the accused to surrender before the trial court so as to serve out the unserved period of sentence imposed on them by this judgment.
However, in a first, taking note of the fact that the child from the second marriage was just 6 years of age, the top court directed that first the second husband shall serve the sentence and once he is out, the woman can serve the sentence. The top court clarified that the this arrangement shall not be treated as a precedent as it was ordered in these special circumstances.
"...firstly the second accused shall surrender before the trial Court, within a period of 3 weeks from today to serve out the rest of the sentence. Upon his release from the jail, on suffering the sentence, the first accused shall surrender before the Court to serve her remaining period of sentence and such surrender shall be made by the first accused within a period of 2 weeks from the release of the second accused from the jail."