LI Network
Published on: 28 September 2023 at 13:30 IST
The Supreme Court has recently granted probation of good conduct to a man convicted under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for kidnapping a minor, considering that he has since married the victim, and they now have two children and are “happily living together.”
However, the Court upheld the man’s conviction under Sections 143, 149, and 366 of the IPC for abducting the minor victim (now his wife) to coerce her into marrying him.
In this case, the petitioners were originally convicted under Sections 144, 366, 366 A, and 149 of the IPC and were sentenced to three years in prison. The petitioners, seeking exemption from surrendering, argued that petitioner no. 1 (the appellant no. 1) had married the victim many years ago, and they have two children together.
The State opposed the request, stating that the victim, during a spot inspection, had confirmed that she had married petitioner no. 1 about seven years ago and had two children with him.
The State argued that the fact that they had married should not be a reason to condone the crime against the State. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court, in an order dated December 7, 2020, granted an exemption from surrendering.
Following this, the Court, in an order dated December 12, 2020, directed the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority (KSLSA) to investigate the factual circumstances and the well-being of the victim. The KSLSA reported that appellant no. 1 has been happily married to the victim for the past eight years, and they have two children together.
Consequently, a bench comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice S.V.N Bhatti observed, “The KSLSA had submitted a report stating that the victim is married to appellant no.1 – Thimma for the last about eight years, and they have two children. The family is happily living together. The family members of the appellant – Thimma and the victim have accepted the marriage. The victim has specifically stated that appellant no.1 – Thimma is taking good care of her, and her two children, and has not ill-treated her in any manner. A similar statement has been made by the mother of the victim. Photographs have also been enclosed with the said report.”
Considering the facts and circumstances, the Court was inclined to exercise its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
As a result, the bench noted, “Accordingly, while we uphold the conviction of appellant no.1 – Thimma under Sections 143, 149, and 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, we direct that appellant no.1 – Thimma will be released on probation of good conduct. In view of the report submitted by the KSLSA, we are dispensing with the requirement of a report by the Probation Officer.”
The bench further directed the appellant to execute a bond of good conduct without any surety on other terms and conditions to be determined by the trial court for a period of three years. The bench also instructed the KSLSA to provide legal assistance to the appellant to enable him to furnish the bond within two months.
Under these conditions, the Court modified the impugned sentence order, allowed the appeal, and disposed of the matter.
Case Title: Thimma and Others V. State Of Karnataka