Offence Of Bigamy U/S 494 IPC Is In Personam: SC Upholds Conviction But Reduces Sentence To Undergon

In a noteworthy judgment, the Supreme Court of India upheld the conviction of A. Vijay Vijaya Kumar under Sections 417 (cheating) and 376 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) but reduced his sentence to the period already served. The bench, consisting of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure justice, given the unique circumstances of the case.

 

Case Background

 

The appellant had been convicted of cheating and rape and sentenced by the trial court to one year of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ?12,000 for cheating, and 12 years of imprisonment with a fine of ?75,000 for rape. The conviction was upheld by the Madras High Court, leading the appellant to appeal to the Supreme Court under Criminal Appeal No. 115 of 2025.

 

The Compromise and Unique Circumstances

 

During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant and the complainant submitted a compromise deed dated July 29, 2022, stating that they had married and were living together with their daughter. The complainant expressed her wish not to pursue the charges further.

 

In considering the case, the Court acknowledged the complex personal and social dynamics involved. While the appellant's second marriage was legally invalid under Section 494 IPC (bigamy), it was seen as affecting only the individuals involved, particularly as there was no complaint from his first wife.

 

Key Legal Considerations

 

The Court reflected on the tension between legal principles and societal norms in personal matters. It noted that the complainant, a Christian, and the appellant, a Hindu, may not have followed Hindu rituals in their marriage, but this was not central to the case. Additionally, the first wife had not raised any concerns regarding the bigamy.

 

Judgment and Observations

 

The Court upheld the appellant's conviction but modified the sentence, taking into account several factors:

 

The appellant and complainant had resolved their differences and were living together peacefully with their child.

 

Both were economically disadvantaged, working as a washerman and a laborer, and depended on each other for their livelihood.

 

The overriding aim of Article 142 was to deliver complete justice and bring the matter to a close.

 

 

The bench concluded, "The offence of bigamy under Section 494 IPC is in personam, primarily affecting the individuals involved. Since no grievances remain and the parties are living peacefully, it is appropriate to close the matter."

 

Representation

 

The appellant was represented by Mr. C.S. Mani, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Maurya, Ms. Yasmeen, and others, while the State was represented by Mr. D. Kumanan and his team.

 

This judgment emphasizes the Court's approach to delivering justice that considers the unique circumstances of each case, while still upholding the law.