Sentencing under imprisonment-and-fine offences cannot be reduced to fine alone when the substantive law requires custody.

Where a penal provision prescribes imprisonment and fine, an appellate court cannot replace the custodial term with fine alone merely because the statute also makes the offender liable to fine. The Supreme Court's sentencing analysis emphasises that appellate power under the criminal procedure law must remain within the punishment structure fixed by the substantive offence, and cannot produce a sentence contrary to law. Mitigating factors such as the accused's gender and family circumstances did not justify eliminating imprisonment where the trial court had already imposed a comparatively lenient custodial sentence. Proportionality and deterrence remained the governing sentencing considerations.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellate court could, while affirming conviction for offences punishable under Sections 307, 328 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code, set aside the sentence of imprisonment altogether and substitute it with fine alone.

Analysis: The offences under Sections 307, 328 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code prescribe punishment of imprisonment and also fine. The statutory phrase that the offender "shall also be liable to fine" does not authorise elimination of imprisonment where the offence itself is proved. The appellate power under Section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 permits alteration of the nature or extent of sentence only in accordance with the sentencing scheme of the substantive offence, and cannot be exercised to impose a punishment contrary to law. The mitigating circumstances relied upon, namely that the accused was a woman and had minor children, had already been considered by the trial court while awarding a comparatively lenient sentence of two years' imprisonment. In offences of this nature, proportionality and deterrence remain the governing sentencing considerations, and undue sympathy cannot justify a wholly monetary sentence.

Conclusion: The substitution of imprisonment by fine alone was impermissible in law. The sentence imposed by the trial court was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a penal provision prescribes imprisonment and fine, an appellate court cannot, by exercising power to alter sentence, substitute the statutory imprisonment with fine alone; the sentence must remain within the punishment structure authorised by the substantive law.

---