1. Conviction under Sections 417 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code — subsequent marriage between appellant and complainant — joint application for closure of proceedings. (Para 2 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1429
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PANKAJ MITHAL AND AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.
A. Vijay @ Vijaya Kumar -Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 115 of 2025 (@ SLP (Crl.) No.9413 of 2022)
Decided on : 08-01-2025
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :G.S Mani, Advocate, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Maurya, Advocate, Ms. Yasmeen, Advocate, Mr. Ashok Kumar Rai, Advocate, Ms. Haseena M, Advocate, Mr. R. Sathish, Advocate
For the Respondent:D.Kumanan, Advocate, Mrs. Deepa. S, Advocate, Mr. Sheikh F. Kalia, Advocate, Mr. Veshal Tyagi, Advocate, Mr. Chinmay Anand Panigrahi, Advocate, Ms. Shagufa Khan, Advocate
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :G.S Mani, Advocate, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Maurya, Advocate, Ms. Yasmeen, Advocate, Mr. Ashok Kumar Rai, Advocate, Ms. Haseena M, Advocate, Mr. R. Sathish, Advocate
For the Respondent:D.Kumanan, Advocate, Mrs. Deepa. S, Advocate, Mr. Sheikh F. Kalia, Advocate, Mr. Veshal Tyagi, Advocate, Mr. Chinmay Anand Panigrahi, Advocate, Ms. Shagufa Khan, Advocate
The Supreme Court, exercising powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, may modify a sentence to the period already undergone in cases where the accused and complainant have married and reconciled, prioritizing family stability and the interests of their child over further imprisonment.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 417 and 376 - Conviction for offences of cheating and rape - Sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of one year for cheating and twelve years for rape. During appeal, parties maritally reconciled and request to retract complaint led to modification of sentence following specific circumstances. (Paras 2, 4, 7)
(B) Family Law - Second marriage under Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 - Appellant married prior to the offence, creating a potential conflict but no grievance noted from the first wife. The response to societal implications is contingent on consent and circumstances indicating harmonious living. (Paras 6)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for cheating and rape and sentenced. During appeal, both parties stated they married and had a child, expressing satisfaction with each other.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld conviction while modifying the sentence to time already served. Merely living harmoniously as a factor in decision-making.
Issues: The main issues included the marital status of the appellant and implications of a second marriage under existing law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that on balancing the parties' contentment and societal implications, the conviction stood but with leniency on sentencing given their reconciled status.
Result: Appeal allowed with modification of sentence.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant and complainant seek closure of prosecution based on subsequent marriage and reconciliation — State admits the marriage and absence of grievances. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. Consideration of the parties' socio-economic status, the birth of a child, and the nature of the second marriage as an offence in personam. (Para 6 )
4. Exercise of extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to modify sentences and close proceedings in the interest of justice and family stability. (Para 7 )
5. Conviction upheld, but sentence of imprisonment modified to the period already undergone. (Para 7 , 8 )
6. Can the court modify a sentence based on a compromise in a criminal matter?
Yes, the court can exercise its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to modify a sentence or close a matter to achieve justice, particularly when parties have married and have a child. (Para 6 , 7 )
7. What is the court's view on a second marriage during the subsistence of a first marriage where no complaint is filed by the first spouse?
The court noted that the offence of a second marriage is essentially one in personam and may be overlooked if the parties are living happily and the first spouse has no grievance. (Para 6 )
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant was convicted for an offence under Sections 417 and 376 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (for short 'the IPC'). He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 417 of IPC and for a period of 12 years and a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 376 of IPC.
3. The appeal against the conviction and sentence was dismissed by the High Court whereupon the present appeal has been preferred.
4. During the pendency of this appeal, the appellant and the complainant have jointly filed an application supported by an affidavit and annexing a Compromise Deed dated 29.07.2022 wherein it has been stated that both of them have married and out of the said wedlock a daughter was born and they are living together happily. In such a situation, the complainant does not want to press her complaint for the prosecution or conviction of the appellant.
5. Learned counsel for the State upon instructions admits that the appellant and the complainant have married. They are living happily and they have no grievance against each other in connection to their marriage or the offence committed.
6. It is pertinent to note that, the appellant was already married at the time of commission of the offence. Therefore, under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956, he could not have entered into a second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage but there appears to be no complaint in this regard by his first wife. The offence of second marriage is essentially one in personam, may be affecting the society at large. But, since none of the parties to the marriage have any issue in the subject rather are stated to be living happily, we consider it appropriate to close the matter, more particularly, when it is not clear as to whether they have married according to the Hindu rituals or otherwise, as the wife is a Christian by religion, as stated in the Compromise Deed. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, more particularly when the parties are menial workers who work as Dhobi and labourer respectively as also there being a child born to them, it is considered appropriate to give quietus to the matter.
7. Accordingly, in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, we close the matter by upholding the conviction order but by modifying the sentence of imprisonment to that of already undergone.
8. The appeal is allowed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
