In Brief
The State challenged the High Court's decision to set aside a two-year imprisonment sentence and replace it with a ₹30,000 fine for serious offences (attempt to murder, administering poison, and robbery). The Supreme Court held that when statutory provisions mandate both imprisonment and fine using the language 'shall also be liable to fine', both punishments are mandatory. The appellate court cannot eliminate imprisonment entirely, regardless of mitigating factors. Although the accused's status as a woman caring for minor children justified some leniency, the trial court had already accounted for this by awarding minimal two-year sentences. The Court restored the original conviction and sentence, reaffirming that sentencing discretion must respect statutory schemes and deterrence principles for serious crimes.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.