The Supreme Court of India, in a noteworthy judgment, upheld the conviction of A. Vijay @ Vijaya Kumar under Sections 417 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) but reduced the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone. The bench, comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure justice tailored to the unique circumstances of the case.
Case Background
The appellant, convicted of cheating (Section 417 IPC) and rape (Section 376 IPC), was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of one year and a fine of ₹2,000 for cheating, and twelve years with a fine of ₹5,000 for rape by the trial court. The conviction and sentence were upheld by the High Court of Madras, prompting the appellant to approach the Supreme Court through Criminal Appeal No. 115 of 2025.
Unique Circumstances and the Compromise Deed
During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant and the complainant submitted a compromise deed dated July 29, 2022, revealing that they had married and were living happily together with their daughter born out of the wedlock. The complainant explicitly expressed her wish not to pursue the charges further.
Key Legal Issues Addressed
The Supreme Court analyzed the interplay between societal norms and legal principles, particularly in cases of personal nature. The appellant’s second marriage, while a violation of Section 494 IPC (bigamy) due to the subsistence of his first marriage, was deemed an offence in personam (affecting only individuals involved) rather than in rem (affecting society at large).
The Court observed that the complainant, a Christian by religion, and the appellant, a Hindu, may not have married under Hindu rituals. It also noted that the first wife had not raised any complaint regarding the bigamy, further reinforcing the decision to close the case.
Judgment and Observations
The Court upheld the appellant’s conviction but modified the sentence to the period already undergone, emphasizing the importance of the following factors:
– The appellant and the complainant had resolved their disputes and were living harmoniously.
– The couple were both economically disadvantaged, working as a washerman and laborer, and had a child dependent on them.
– The overarching aim of Article 142—to deliver complete justice—necessitated bringing the matter to a quietus.
Quoting the judgment, the bench remarked:
“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. G.S. Mani, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Maurya, Ms. Yasmeen, and others, while the respondent State was represented by Mr. D. Kumanan and his team.
