NAROTAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The law of crimes perverts itself on occasions into the crime of law if narrow legalism overwhelms social justice. This criticism applies to the field of penology as well, and so the finer, more perceptive and sociologically relevant approach to punishment, when crime has been proved, is to take a holistic, realistic and humanistic size-up action as to promote rehabilitation without offending community conscience. Taking this stance, we responded to counsel"s submission in the above appeal which relates to a conviction of the appellant for bigamy, and the result has been the composition of the offence and prayer for permission of the Court in that behalf which we accord.

(2.) We may give a thumbnail sketch of the facts to appreciate why we have resorted to the course we have adopted and brought about a happy resolution of an embittered marital discord which otherwise may explode into more dangerous sequelae. The complainant, Amrit Kaur, was married to the accused, and although their married life could have been sweet, a dowry issue soured the relationship with the usual mother-in-law-daughter-in-law breezes and blasts. To make a long story of torment short, the wife was sent back to her brother and restoration of the conjugal home did never occur. Meanwhile, the first accused picked up intimacy with another woman, Damanjeet Kaur (accused No. 3) which ripened into a sort of wedlock. Thereupon, the complainant charged the accused, namely, the husband, the mother-in-law, the second wife, and others with offences under S. 494 read with S. 109, I. P. C. The defence that there was no second marriage, and therefore no bigamy, was disbelieved and the trial court held the second marriage proved. The husband, the appellant, was found guilty and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, while the other accused were acquitted. The High Court summarily dismissed the appeal and we are satisfied that the conviction was correctly rendered.

(3.) Discrepancies do not necessarily demolish testimony; delay does not necessarily spell unveracity and tortured technicalities do not necessarily upset conviction when the Court has had a perspicacious, sensitive and correctly oriented view of the evidence and probabilities to reach the conclusion it did. Proof of guilt is sustained despite little infirmities, tossing peccadilloes and peripheral probative shortfalls. The "sacred cows" of shadowy doubts and marginal mistakes, processual or other, cannot deter the Court from punishing crime where it has been sensibly and substantially brought home. By these guidelines, the conviction of the appellant must stand, although we do not detain ourselves to discuss the details of the evidence.