Baba Natarajan Prasad   [Appellant] Vs.  Revathi  [Respondent]

(Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 11461 of 2022)

(2JB, C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar JJ., delivered by C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.)

Facts: The case on hand unfolds as grievance of grave deviation of the principle of sentencing thus laid down by this Court and it carries a consequential prayer for enhancement of punishment for conviction for the offence under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘I.P.C.’). The appellant-complainant assails the common judgment passed in Crl. Appeal Nos.647/2021 and 635/2021 respectively in the captioned appeals dated 26.08.2022 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras to the extent it imposed only a fleabite sentence for the conviction of the respondent-accused for the offence under Section 494 I.P.C., and confirmed the acquittal of the co-accused of the said respondents. The fact is that despite the restoration of the conviction entered against them by the trial Court after reversing their acquittal by the First Appellate Court and the consequential imposition of sentence, the respondents in both the appeals who were accused Nos.1 and 2 have not chosen to challenge the common judgment dated 26.08.2022.

Issue: Whether the High Court was right in not restoring the sentence imposed for the conviction under Section 494 I.P.C., by the trial Court?

Arguments on behalf of counsel for appellant:

The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant herein would submit that a scanning of the judgment of the trial Court would reveal that the Court had appropriately appreciated the evidence on record and convicted accused Nos.1 and 2 upon satisfying itself that the ingredients to attract the offence punishable under Section 494 I.P.C., have been made out by the appellant. Furthermore, it is submitted that a bare perusal of the impugned judgment would reveal that the High Court had rightly considered the contentions of the appellant herein against the reversal of their conviction by the First Appellate Court that it was founded on surmises and conjectures. The appellant herein contended that a reading of Section 494 I.P.C., would reveal that the said offence, if proved to have been committed, the offender deserves no leniency as it is a serious offence. To buttress the said contention, the learned senior counsel relied on the decision of this Court in Gopal Lal v. State of Rajasthan8 , wherein this Court held that where the offence of bigamy is proved, the Court could not take a lenient view.

Held: The court allowed the present appeal and held that, “if the question whether accused Nos.1 and 2 are granted a proper sentence or what was granted was only a flea-bite sentence, 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.”