Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(SC) 591

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, SANJAY KUMAR, JJ.
Baba Natarajan Prasad – Appellant
Versus
M. Revathi – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2912 of 2024 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 11461 of 2022) with Criminal Appeal No. of 2024 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 11824 of 2022)
Decided on : 15-07-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. A. Lakshminarayanan, AOR
For the Respondent(s) Mr. G.sivabalamurugan, AOR Mr. Selvaraj Mahendran, Adv. Mr. C Adhikesavan, Adv. Mr. P V Harikrishnan, Adv. Mr. Ratnakar Dash, Sr. Adv. Mr. G. Sivabalamurugan, Adv. Mr. Karunakar Mahalik, AOR Mr. Manoranajan Mishra, Adv. Mrs. Monika, Adv. Mr. C.p. Singh, Adv. Mr. Manoj Kumar, Adv. Mr. Sarbendra Kumar, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Just sentence – Meagre sentence imposed solely on account of lapse of time without considering degree of offence will be counterproductive in long run and against interest of society.
(2) Bigamy – Offence of bigamy is a serious offence – Imposition of 'imprisonment till rising of court' is not a proper sentence falling in tune with rule of proportionality in providing punishment.

Headnote:
(A) Criminal Law – Just sentence – Sentencing courts are expected to consider all relevant facts and circumstances bearing on question of sentence and proceed to impose sentence commensurate with gravity of offence – Court must not only keep in view rights of victim but also society at large while considering imposition of appropriate punishment – Meagre sentence imposed solely on account of lapse of time without considering degree of offence will be counterproductive in long run and against interest of society – Clamour for deserved punishment proportionate to gravity of offence is a continuous and continuing demand based on civic sense and unfailing in categories of serious offences where more than individual interest is also involved. (Paras 2 and 4)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 494[Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Section 82(1)] – Bigamy – Conviction – Just sentence – Offence of bigamy is a serious offence – Decision on question of sentence could never be regarded as precedent – Under impugned common judgment High Court after restoring conviction for offence under Section 494 I.P.C., sentenced accused persons to undergo imprisonment till rising of court and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- each with default sentence – It is solemn duty of Court to strike proper balance awarding sentence proportionate to gravity of offence committed by accused concerned upon his conviction for serious offence(s) – Imposition of 'imprisonment till rising of court' is not a proper sentence falling in tune with rule of proportionality in providing punishment – In the matter of awarding sentence for conviction of an offence which may impact society, it is not advisable to let off accused after conviction with a flea-bite sentence – Six months’ simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,000/- each awarded. (Paras 12, 13, 14, 18, 19 and 20)
Facts of the case:
Case on hand unfolds as grievance of grave deviation of principle of sentencing laid down by this Court and it carries a consequential prayer for enhancement of punishment for conviction for offence under Section 494 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Appellant-complainant assails common judgment passed in Crl. Appeal Nos.647/2021 and 635/2021 respectively in captioned appeals dated 26.08.2022 of High Court of Judicature at Madras to the extent it imposed only a fleabite sentence for conviction of respondent-accused for offence under Section 494 I.P.C., and confirmed acquittal of the co-accused of the said respondents.
Findings of Court:
Upon his release from the jail, on suffering the sentence, the first accused shall surrender before 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. This arrangement shall not be treated as a precedent as it was ordered in these special circumstances.
Result : Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT :

C.T. Ravikumar, J.

Leave granted.

2. Salmond defined 'crime' as an act deemed by law to be harmful for society as a whole although its immediate victim may be an individual. Long-long ago, Kautilya said: "it is the power of punishment alone which when exercised impartially in proportion to guilt and irrespective of whether the person punished is the king's son or the enemy, that protects this world and the next". In the decision in State of Punjab v. Bawa Singh, (2015) 3 SCC 441, this Court held that it is the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed. The sentencing courts are expected to consider all the relevant facts and circumstances bearing on the question of sentence and proceed to impose a sentence commensurate with the gravity of the offence. The court must not only keep in view the rights of the victim but also the society at large while considering the imposition of appropriate punishment. Meagre sentence imposed solely on account of lapse of time without considering the degree of the offence will be counterproductive in the long run and against the interest of the society, it was further held. In Bawa Singh's case (supra), this Court referred to the earlier decisions in Hazara Singh v. Raj Kumar & Ors., (2013) 9 SCC 516, and Shailesh Jasvantbhai & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Ors., (2006) 2 SCC 359, with agreement, in paragraphs 13 and 14 thereof, as under:-

"10. ... it is the duty of the courts to consider all the relevant factors to impose an appropriate sentence. The legislature has bestowed upon the judiciary this enormous discretion in the sentencing policy, which must be exercised with utmost care and caution. The punishment awarded should be directly proportionate to the nature and the magnitude of the offence. The benchmark of proportionate sentencing can assist the Judges in arriving at a fair and impartial verdict."

This Court further observed that:

"11. ... The cardinal principle of sentencing policy is that the sentence imposed on an offender should reflect the crime he has committed and it should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence. This Court has repeatedly stressed the central role of proportionality in sentencing of offenders in numerous cases."

14. In Shailesh Jasvantbhai v. State of Gujarat, the Apex Court opined that:

"7. The law regulates social interests, arbitrates conflicting claims and demands. Security of persons and property of the people is an essential function of the State. It could be achieved through instrumentality of criminal law. Undoubtedly, there is a cross-cultural conflict where living law must find answer to the new challenges and the courts are required to mould the sentencing system to meet the challenges. The contagion of lawlessness would undermine social order and lay it in ruins. Protection of society and stamping out criminal proclivity must be the object of law which must be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence. Therefore, law as a cornerstone of the edifice of 'order' should meet the challenges confronting the society. Friedman in his Law in Changing Society stated that: 'State of criminal law continues to be-as it should be-a decisive reflection of social consciousness of society.' Therefore, in operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or deterrence based on factual matrix. By deft modulation, sentencing process be stern where it should be, and tempered with mercy where it warrants to be. The facts and given circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration.

8. Therefore, undue sympathy to impose inadequate s