A custodial sentence may be replaced by a fine where the statute permits either punishment.

Ranjit Nishad died by suspected poisoning on 8 January 2012.

The prosecution alleged that the appellant and others harassed him to recover a loan advanced by the appellant’s father.

The deceased’s wife testified that the loan had been repaid but the appellant continued to demand money and threaten the deceased; a suicide note naming the appellant was found on the deceased and was matched to his handwriting.

The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 4 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Debtors Act, 1937, and sentenced him to three months’ simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500.

In appeal, the appellant did not contest the conviction but sought substitution of the custodial sentence with a fine, relying on the passage of time, his age, and family responsibilities.

Section 4 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Debtors Act, 1937, provides for simple imprisonment up to three months, or a fine of Rs. 500, or both; the court treated the provision as prescribing no minimum custodial sentence.

In sentencing, Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1977 (3) SCC 287, supports a rehabilitative and reformative approach, while Raj Bala v. State of Haryana, 2016 (1) SCC 463, requires proportionate punishment informed by the gravity and circumstances of the offence, the offender’s antecedents and prospects of reform, and the need to maintain public confidence in the justice system.

The court also invoked Section 395(3) of the BNSS, 2023, as authority for compensation, and Section 481 of the BNSS for continuation of the appellant’s bail bond.

The court independently reviewed the conviction despite the appellant’s limited challenge.

It relied on the wife’s testimony and the handwriting-examined suicide note to find the appellant’s involvement in harassment for recovery of the debt established, and upheld the conviction under Section 4.

On sentence, it weighed the nature of the allegation and evidence against the appellant’s age, family responsibilities, the length of the proceedings, and the absence of a statutory minimum custodial term.

Applying the cited sentencing principles, it concluded that justice did not require imprisonment and that a fine, together with compensation to the deceased’s wife, was appropriate.

The conviction under Section 4 of the Chhattisgarh Protection of Debtors Act, 1937, was maintained, but the custodial sentence was set aside.

The appellant was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 500 and directed to pay Rs. 10,000 as compensation to the deceased’s wife within three months; his bail bond was to continue for six months.