https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292281 The Supreme Court held that substituting imprisonment with a fine for offences under Sections 307, 328, and 392 of the Indian Penal Code was impermissible. Mitigating circumstances, such as being a woman with dependent children, were considered but did not warrant eliminating the imprisonment sentence. The Court reinstated the trial court's judgment, emphasizing the necessity of both imprisonment and a fine. The High Court's decision to replace imprisonment with only a fine was overturned, highlighting the importance of sentencing proportionality and adherence to statutory requirements. The State's appeal was allowed, and the respondent was directed to serve the original sentence. en-us Mon, 10 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Dec 2020 20:46:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292281 The Supreme Court held that substituting imprisonment with a fine for offences under Sections 307, 328, and 392 of the Indian Penal Code was impermissible. Mitigating circumstances, such as being a woman with dependent children, were considered but did not warrant eliminating the imprisonment sentence. The Court reinstated the trial court's judgment, emphasizing the necessity of both imprisonment and a fine. The High Court's decision to replace imprisonment with only a fine was overturned, highlighting the importance of sentencing proportionality and adherence to statutory requirements. The State's appeal was allowed, and the respondent was directed to serve the original sentence. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 10 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292281