CRIMINAL LAW-IIPROJECT

Appeal by the State Government against Sentence

Submitted to: Submitted by:Faculty of Law Criminal Law-II

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I take this opportunity to express my gratitude and personal regards tofor inspiring and guiding me during the course of this project work.

I also owe my sincere thanks to the Library staff, Nirma University for the cooperation and facilities extended from time to time during the progress of my project work.

I owe all inconsistencies and mistakes, if any, in this research study and sincerely apologize again for the same.

DECLARATION

I hereby declare that this project report entitled Appeal by the State Government against Sentence is a bona fide record work done by me during the course of V Semester B.Com. LL.B (Hons.) in the subject of Criminal Law-II and it has not previously formed the basis of award to me for any degree/diploma, associate ship, fellowship or other similar title of any other institute/society.

Date: October 6, 2012 Madhur Gupta

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that Mr. Madhur Gupta Roll No. 10BBL022 has done project on the topic Appeal by the State Government against Sentence for the subject Criminal Law-II as a part of their course. This is his/her original work.

PROJECT SYNOPSISRESEARCH METHODOLOGYResearch methodology will essentially be deductive and data will be collected from various websites, articles, journals and books. The research will be deductive because the assessments or the answers of the questions will be taken into account by various examples and incidents, which have occurred prior to that. Various primary and secondary sources will be referred for gathering the information for the project. The sources from the Internet will also be relied upon. The views of various authors and writers will be referred. Hypothesis Appeals are made because the sentence awarded by the court below is inadequate There is no time limit to file an appeal In an appeal on the grounds of inadequacy, the high court can enhance the sentence.

Aims and ObjectiveThe present research is aimed at studying and analyising the various provision available with the government to appeal against a sentence awarded by the court of law. The primary objective is to critically analyse section- 377 of the criminal procedural code with help of various leading case laws and amendments made.Scope and LimitationsThe scope of this research paper is limited to the provisions relating to India. The researcher was constrained by time and since the topic is very vast, the researcher is unable to cover all aspects and also due to lack of material available in the library as well on the Internet.

Statement of Problem:The research paper study the provisions of section 377 of the criminal procedural code and give answers to the various questions regarding the appeals made by the state government and also the questions related to the powers of the court to entertain the appeals with the help of different landmark judgments.

Book Review:

Sohonis Code Of Criminal Procedure, 20th edition, Volume IV, R. GopalThe book gives a brief understanding of the section 377 with different relevant case laws and provisions. History of enactment of the section is being referred from this book.

The Code of Criminal Procedure, Ratanlal & DhirajlalProvision mentioned in Subsection (1) and (2) of section 377 are referred from the above stated book. Also the scope of appeals is referred.

The Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 by S.N. MisraStudy of Powers of the High court to enhance the sentence not taken away has been referred from this book. Also the historical aspect of the enactment of sub section (3) is being referred.

The Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. By Justice Rajesh TandonVarious case laws relating to the state appeals have been reffered from this book.

TABLE OF CONTENTSChapter 1 Introduction.8Chapter 2 Body.......10 Scope of appeal under Section 377....10 Appeals against inadequacy of sentence Sub-section (1)...10 Powers of the High court to enhance the sentence not taken away...13 Sub-section (2).......14 Sub-Section (3)......17

Chapter 3 Conclusion and suggestions...19

Chapter 1 : IntroductionSection 377 of criminal procedure code defines Appeals by the state government against the sentence. The section states that:(1) Save otherwise provided in subsection (2), the State Government may, in any case of conviction on a trial held by any court other than High court, direct the Public prosecutor to present an appeal on ground of its inadequacy.(2) If such conviction is in case in which the offence has been investigated by Delhi Special Police Enactment, constituted under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946(25 of 1946), or by any other agency empowered to make investigation into an offence under any Central Act other than this Code, the Central Government may also direct the public prosecutor to present an appeal before high court against the sentence of inadequacy.(3) When an appeal has been filed against the sentence on the ground of its inadequacy, the High Court shall not enhance the sentence except after giving to the accused a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against such enactment and while showing cause, the accused may plead for his acquittal or for the reduction of the sentence.This section was introduced at the recommendation of the law commission in its 41st report. The provisions of this section, as originally drafted were to provide for the appeal being filed in the session court. The select committee, however, thought that the appeal should lie in the High Court. It observed that: An appeal for enhancement on grounds of its inadequacy should in the Committees opinion be entertained only by High Court and not by an appellate court provided in the original clause. This is because the punishment awarded by competent court should not be disturbed except by the highest court in the state. Further certain uniform standards have to be adopted in this regard and this can be secured only if the power is exercised by the High Court. Sub clause (1) has accordingly been amended and Sub clause (2) has been expanded to include the cases where the investigation is made by other Central authorities vested by Central Act with the power to make investigation in respect certain offences such as those under Customs Act, the railway Protection Force Act, etc.

An appeal under this section may be filed by public prosecutor on the direction of i. The State Governmentii. The Central Government. If the offence was investigated by (a) The Delhi Special Police Establishment, constituted under the Delhi special Establishment Act 1946:or(b) Any other agency empowered to investigate into an offence under Central Act other than this Code

CHAPTER 2: BODY2.1 SCOPE OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 377Until now the High Court could be moved for enhancement of sentence only in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Under the present section an appeal to the High Court can be presented for that purpose. The accused will be entitled to be heard before the sentence is enhanced. While showing cause against enhancement, the accused will be entitled to challenge the conviction and plead for his acquittal. An appeal under this section may be filed by the public prosecutor on the direction of(i) The State Government; (ii) The Central Government, if the offence was investigated by(a) The Delhi Special Police Establishment, constituted under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act 1946 (25 of 1946); or (b) Any other agency empowered to investigate into an offence under any Central Act other than this Code. 2.2 APPEAL AGAINST INADEQUACY OF SENTENCE-SUBSECTION (1) By S 377, a right to appeal against the inadequacy of sentence awarded by the court below has been conferred on the State. In such an appeal the High Court can interfere with the order of sentence.Where in an appeal by the accused against conviction the sentence was reduced and the State did not file any revision against the reduction of sentence by the appellate court, but filed an appeal under s 377 for the enhancement of the sentence imposed originally by the trial court it was held that no appeal lay under s 377.[footnoteRef:1] [1: State of Rajasthan v Roopdan 1979 Raj Cr C 348.]

An appeal against the inadequacy of sentence, imposed either by the trial court or the appellate court, will lie only to the High Court. In a case tried by a magistrate or the chief judicial magistrate, the High Court could enhance the sentence when moved under s 377, only to that extent which is permissible to be imposed by such trial court and not more than what the trial court itself could have imposed. When the crime is of such a nature that more deterrent sentence is called for, the High Court under s 407 (1), cl (c) sub-cl (iii), can itself direct the case to be committed for trial to the court of session, as it would be expedient for the ends of justice that proper punishment is imposed.[footnoteRef:2] [2: Nafiz Agha alias Munna v State 1979 All Cr C 118]

Where a magistrate accepting a plea of guilty under s 304-A, IPC, assigned no reason for imposing a fine of Rs 250/-, it was held by the High Court to be a fit case for the enhancement of sentence and the sentence was enhanced to three months rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs 1000/-, after considering the plea of the accused that the case itself was more than 8 years old.[footnoteRef:3] In a special leave petition by the State for the enhancement of the sentence, the accused can argue for his acquittal, though sub-s (3) of s 377 does not in terms apply an appeal to the Supreme Court under art 136 of the Constitution. [3: State of Karnataka v Embichi Ahmed ILR 1990 Kar 598.]

In State of Uttar Pradesh v Dharmendra Singh & Ors,[footnoteRef:4] it was observed by the Supreme Court that: A perusal of this section shows that this provision is applicable only when the matter is before the High Court and the same is not applicable to this Court when an appeal for enhancement of sentence is made under Article 136 of the Constitution. It is to be noted that an appeal to this Court in criminal matters is not provided under the Code except in cases covered by Section 379 of the Code. An appeal to this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution is not the same as a statutory appeal under the Code. This Court under Article 136 of the Constitution is not a regular Court of appeal which an accused can approach as of right. It is an extraordinary jurisdiction which is exercisable only in exceptional cases when this Court is satisfied that it should interfere to prevent a grave or serious miscarriage of justice, as distinguished from mere error in appreciation of evidence. While exercising this jurisdiction, this Court is not bound by the rules of procedure as applicable to the Courts below. This Courts' judgment under Article 136 of the Constitution is limited by its own discretion. In view of this matter, we are of the opinion that Section 377 (3) of the Code in terms does not apply to an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution. This does not mean that this Court will be unmindful of the principles analogous to those found in the Code including those under Section 373 (3) of the Code while moulding a procedure for the disposal of an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution. Apart from the Supreme Court Rules applicable for the disposal of the criminal appeals in this Court, the Court also adopts such analogous principles found in the Code so as to make the procedure a 'fair procedure' depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. [4: AIR 1999 SC 3789 ]

Once an appeal under s 377 has been filed, there is no provision in the, Cr PC, to withdraw the same. In an appeal under s 377 the main question is whether the sentence awarded by the court below is inadequate, and that the accused in the Meanwhile has served out the sentence in no way fetters the power of the High Court to enhance it. In an appeal under s 377, conviction can be set-aside and retrial ordered. In the appeal under s 377, the prosecution can show that the accused has committed a graver offence, equally in that appeal, the accused can show that he has committed no offence.[footnoteRef:5] On the other hand, if the appeal is filed under s 374 (2) of the Code by the convicts against the order passed by the additional sessions judge and no appeal is filed by the State under s 377 (1) of the Code against the sentence awarded by the trial court on the ground of its inadequacy, and the High Court exercised no suo motu revisional powers under s 397 read with s 401 of the Code, it is not open to the High Court in an appeal filed by the convicts to enhance the fine.[footnoteRef:6] [5: Eknath Shankarrao Mukkawar v State of Maharashtra AIR 1977 SC 1177] [6: Sahab Singh v State of Haryana AIR 1990 SC 1188]

LIMITATION FOR APPEAL For filing an appeal in the High Court, the limitation is 60 days from the date of the sentence or order of the trial court. An appeal was filed by the State after 60 days and no application was filed explaining the reasons for each day's delay. It was held that the appeal was barred by limitation.[footnoteRef:7] [7: State v Tekam Singh 1988 Cr Lj 1240 (Del)]

SUO MOTU POWER OF THE HIGH COURT TO ENHANCE THE SENTENCE NOT TAKEN AWAY Section 377 gives a right to the State to appeal against inadequate sentence. However, that section has not taken away the suo motu power of the High Court to enhance the sentence awarded by the courts below. Section 397 read with s 401 preserves the power of the High Court to the same extent in the matter of enhancement of sentence as it had under the 1898 Code.[footnoteRef:8] The Andhra Pradesh High Court has expressed its opinion that a private party can be treated as an aggrieved party to allow him to move the higher court in revision, where the main proceeding culminated in acquittal or discharge of the accused and though an appeal is provided against such order but the State refrained from filing an appeal, which inaction would result in grave miscarriage of justice.[footnoteRef:9] [8: Surendra Singh Rautela v State of Bihar AIR 2002 SC 260] [9: V Ranganayaki v VI Srinath & ors 2002 Cr LJ 154 (AP).]

COMPLAINANT CAN FILE A REVISION PETITION FOR ENHANCEMENT The right to file an appeal against the inadequacy of sentence has given only to the State. However, that does not stand in the way of the complainant filing a revision petition. When such a revision petition filed, the accused must be served with notice of that petition and he has the right to show that he is entitled for acquittal.When the accused has been released under s 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, an appeal lies not under s 377, but under s 11 (2) of the said Act. Under s 11 (2), the criterion for selecting the forum of appeal 'is the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the sentence' of the trial court. The forum for s 377 (1) is a special forum and not an ordinary forum. Therefore, such an appeal under s 11 (2) shall be filed by the State only in the court of session and not in the High Court.When the accused has been released under s 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, appeal lies under s 11(2) of that Act and, therefore, a complainant cannot resort to s 377 (1). The right to appeal is given to the State under s 377 (1) and because of that even if the complainant only prefers a revision petition, it cannot be converted into an appeal.[footnoteRef:10] [10: Mohinder Singh v Satbir Singh 1984 Cr LT 318 (P&H). ]

2.3 SUB-SECTION (2) The Supreme Court has held that an appeal against the inadequacy of sentence in customs cases, under s 377, Cr PC, has to be presented by the public prosecutor instructed by the Central Government, and not by the complainant.[footnoteRef:11] Under sub-s (2), s 377, only the Central Government can file an appeal against the inadequacy of sentence in an offence investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment or any other agency empowered to make investigation into any Central Act other than the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. It was observed by the Supreme Court that: Section 377, Cr PC, introduces a new right of appeal which was not earlier available under the old Code. Under sub-s (1) of s 377, Cr PC, - the State Government has a right of appeal against inadequacy of sentence in all cases other than those referred to in sub-s (2) of that section'. This is made clear under s 377 (1) by its opening clause "save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2)". Sub-section (2) of s 377, on the other hand, confers a right of appeal on the Central Government against a sentence on the ground of its inadequacy in two types of cases:[footnoteRef:12] [11: Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Madras v V Krishnamoorthy & ors AIR 1997 SC 1904] [12: Eknath Shankarrao Mukkawar v State of Maharashtra AIR 1977 SC 1177, 1977 Cr Lj- 968.]

(1) Those cases where the investigation is conducted by the Special Police Establishment Act 1946.(2) Those other cases which are investigated by any other agency empowered to make investigation under any Central Act not being the criminal procedure code.There is no difficulty about the first type of cases which are investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment where certainly the Central Government is the competent authority to appeal against the inadequacy of sentence. The controversy centers around the second type of cases, viz, those which are investigated by any other agency empowered to make investigation under any Central Act not being the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Criminal Procedure Code, inter alia, provides for investigation of all categories of criminal offences. The First Schedule of the Code classifies offences under the Indian Penal Code as well as offences against other laws. Between the above two classifications the entire denotation of criminal offences is exhausted. It is clear that the Delhi Special Police Establishment has also to comply with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure in investigation of offences just as the State Police has to do. By Section 3 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, the Central Government may by notification in the official Gazette specify the offences or class of offences which are to be investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment. It is only when such a notification is made by the Central Government that the Delhi Special Police Establishment is empowered to investigate the specified offences. Similarly, if in any other Central Act, not being the Code of Criminal Procedure, a provision is made for empowering a particular agency to make investigation of offences under that Act, then also the Central Government alone will be the competent authority to prefer appeal under Section 377 (2), Cr PC. The true test, therefore, under Section 377 (2), Cr PC, is whether the offence is investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment or is investigated by any other agency empowered to make investigation under any Central Act other then the Code of Criminal Procedure. In other words just like section 3 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, there should be an express provision in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act empowering the making of investigation under the Act.The expression 'Central Government may also direct', in sub-s (2) of S 377, Crpc, was substituted for the words 'the Central Government may direct' by the Amendment Act 45 of 1978. Sub-section (2), s 417 of the Code of 1973, also used the expression 'Central Government may also direct'. Thus, it is clear that even in the cases investigated by an investigating agency of the Central Government under any Central Act, other than the Code, the State Government is not divested of the power to direct the public prosecutor to file an appeal. It was held under the Code of 1898, in a case investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, that the Government of the State where the trial was held was competent to direct the Prosecutor of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act to file an appeal. It was observed by the Supreme Court that:[footnoteRef:13] [13: Khemraj v State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1976 Sc 173, (1976) SCC 410, 1976 Cr LJ 195, 1976 SCC (Cr) 28.]

Sub-section (1) of Section 417 is in general terms and would take in its purview all types of cases since the expression used in that sub-section is 'in any case'. We do not see any limitation on the power of the State Government to direct institution of appeal with regard to any particular type of cases. Sub-section (1) of Section 417 being in general terms is as such of wider amplitude. Sub-section (2) advisedly uses the word 'also' when power is given to the Central Government in addition to direct the public prosecutor to appeal. Where the investigation was done, in regard to an offence under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act read with s 120-B, IPC, by the Enforcement Directorate and the complaint was filed by the Director of the Enforcement Directorate, it was held that an appeal by the Union of India under s 377 (2) was not maintainable.[footnoteRef:14] The matter of sentence is at the discretion of the trial court, and unless the sentence is so inadequate as to offend the ordinary notions of what justice demands by way of just punishment, the High Court does not enhance the punishment. The High Court is slow to interfere and enhance sentence if the lower court has properly assessed the circumstances and exercised its judicial discretion, and interference is warranted only if the sentence is manifestly inadequate. If the trial court has failed to take into account all relevant circumstances in awarding the sentence and there is miscarriage of justice, the High Court interferes to enhance the punishment in the interest of justice.[footnoteRef:15] The smuggling of gold is a crime against nation and it shatters the economy of the country and the accused must be given the maximum sentence of imprisonment prescribed under the Act. If the lower appellate court treats such a grave crime against the economy of the country very lightly then this is a mockery of justice which will embolden the smugglers to carry on their activities with renewed vigour.[footnoteRef:16] [14: Union of India v KH Abdul Majeed (1985) 2 Cr LC 584.] [15: Madras v Sriram Shankar Prasad 1982 Mad LJ (Cr) 156, 158, 159.] [16: Madurai v M Abdulla 1983 Mad LJ (Cr) 325, 327.]

SCOPE OF THE APPEAL UNDER SECTION 377 The scope of an appeal is governed by s 386 (c). In an appeal against inadequacy of sentence, it is not permissible to alter the conviction to an aggravated category of offence for which the accused was not convicted. The prosecution will only be able to urge that sentence is inadequate on the charge as found or even on an altered less graver charge.[footnoteRef:17] When the sentence under s 304-A, IPC, was too lenient and the High Court refused to enhance, the Supreme Court held that sentence should be enhanced to prevent miscarriage of justice. Where the trial court convicted the accused under s 279 and 304-A, IPC, on a plea bargain and there was no material to find out under what circumstances the incident occurred and the accused pleaded guilty on the expectation of a lesser sentence, it was held by the High Court that the enhancement of punishment would not be proper and it remanded back the case for the trial court to pass adequate sentence if it considered the accused guilty.[footnoteRef:18] [17: State of Kerala v Sivadasan (1988) 1 Crimes 72 ] [18: State v P Manohara 2003 Cr LI. 1002 (Kant).]

Where the sentence for the non-payment of contribution under the Employee's Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, on the plea of guilty was less than the minimum sentence prescribed by law, the sentence was enhanced by the High Court to the minimum sentence of 3 months' imprisonment and a fine of Rs 2000/-.[footnoteRef:19] Where the accused was found guilty in four cases of financial irregularities and he appealed in all cases separately, whereas the State filed a single appeal for the enhancement of sentences, it was held that the State was not competent to seek the enhancement of sentences in all four cases. [footnoteRef:20] [19: State of Maharashtra v Simplex Woolen Mills & ors Mls 1997 Cr L.1 2079 (Born).] [20: T Ratnadas v State of Kerala 1999 Cr LJ 1488 (Ker).]

2.4 SUB-SECTION (3) The accused were prosecuted for an offence tinder s 302 and s 149, IPC, but were convicted under s 304, IPC, and 149, IPC they appealed against their conviction and sentence. The State filed an appeal against the acquittal under s 302, IPC, and also filed a revision petition under s 401, Cr PC, for the enhancement of the sentence awarded under s 304 part I. The High Court dismissed partly allowed the appeal by the State. It enhanced the sentence under s 304 Part I, from 10 years RI to imprisonment for life. The contention of the accused before the Supreme Court that the enhancement of sentence Was without notice to them and that, therefore, it was illegal was rejected, In a revision under s 401 the appellate court could exercise its powers under s 386, Cr PC, and as the records of the case were before the High Court, by virtue of the provisions of s 397 read with s 401, Cr PC, the High Court was competent to do what it has done in this case.[footnoteRef:21] The sessions judge convicted the accused under s 302, IPC, and awarded the sentence of imprisonment for life. The accused filed an appeal against their conviction. While dismissing their appeal, the High Court, in addition, imposed a fine of Rs 5000/- on each of the appellants. The Supreme Court set-aside the imposition of the additional sentence of fine of Rs 5000 by the High Court on the ground that the accused had no notice of the proposed enhancement.[footnoteRef:22] The High Court has the power to enhance the sentence suo moto and the fact that the appeal under s 377, Cr PC, for the enhancement has not been preferred does not affect the power of enhancement. However, the enhancement of life imprisonment to death sentence was set-aside by the Supreme Court, as the order was made without hearing the accused.[footnoteRef:23] The sentence cannot be enhanced by the High Court in an appeal of the convict against the conviction, without any appeal of the State for enhancement. However, the failure of the State to prefer an appeal does not preclude the High Court from exercising revisional powers suo moto, but a notice of enhancement has to be issued to the convicts. When the notice of the enhancement of punishment and the appeal of the convict are heard together, there is sufficient compliance with law, and the accused need not be heard personally. [21: Bachan Singh v State of Punjab AIR 1980 Sc 267, 1983 Mad Li (Cr) 175, (1983), 1 SCR 145.] [22: Surjit Singh v State of Punjab 1985 Cr ILJ 358] [23: Surendra Singh Rautela v State of Bihar AIR 2002 SC 260]

Where the additional sessions judge in an appeal against the conviction under s 25(1-B) (a) of the Arms Act enhanced the sentence without an appeal of the State against the enhancement, the High Court set-aside the order of enhancement.[footnoteRef:24] [24: Kaloo Khan v State of Madhya Pradesh 2001 Cr LJ 873 (MP), 2001(2) Crimes 95 (MP).]

Though the accused deserved the capital sentence under s 302, IPC, the High Court did not award the same in an appeal under s 377, IPC, on the ground that about twelve years had passed between the date of commission of the murders and the date of the judgment of the High Court and a major part of the imprisonment for life had been undergone by the accused.

CHAPTER 3: CONCLUSION & SUGGESTIONSEarlier an appeal for enhancement of sentence on the ground of its inadequacy could only be entertained by the High Court. However, as per the present scheme of Section 377 an appeal on the ground of inadequacy of sentence can also be entertained by the court of sessions in certain circumstances. An appeal for enhancement of a sentence passed by a Magistrate would now lie to the sessions court. This will not only make it easier for the administration to prefer appeals against unduly lenient sentences by Magistrates but will also deter the latter from passing sentences that are grossly inadequate.The right to appeal against inadequacy of the sentence has been given only to the state and not to the complainant or any other person. However that does not mean that the complainant or any other person cannot move the High Court (or court of session) in revision for this purpose. The High Court or the court of session in an appropriate case may, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, decide to act suo motu and enhance the sentence. The provisions under Sections 399 and 401 dealing with the respective revisional powers of the court of session and of the High Court when read with Section 386(c)(iii) are clearly supplemental to those under Section 377. The effect of reading Sections 377, 386 and 401 may however be noted. While in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction the High Court or the court of session is competent to enhance the sentence, the accused has to be given an opportunity of being heard not only against the enhancement of the sentence but also against the conviction itself. In a case where both the appeal and a petition for enhancement of sentence were heard by the High Court it was ruled that there was no II to hear the appellant as he could be permitted to lead evidence while hearing the appeal. Moreover, the court noted, the appellant have had opportunity of being heard under Section 235(2) at the time of conviction.While the accused in an appeal under Section 377 can show that he is innocent of the offence, the prosecution is not entitled to show that he is guilty of a graver offence and on that basis the sentence should be enhanced. The prosecution will only be able to urge that the sentence is inadequate on the charge as found or even on an altered less grave charge.In a case where the conviction is recorded by the trial court but instead of awarding sentence of imprisonment the convict is released on probation under the provisions of the relevant special law then it is a case where no sentence at all has been awarded and as such the provisions of Section 377(1) are not attracted. The High Court or the court of session, while exercising the power of enhancing the sentence passed by the trial court must counter by clear ratiocination the reasons given by the trial court in passing the sentence.

REFERENCESWEBSITES REFERED Appeals against sentencehttp://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/page/about-sentencing/sentencing-information/process/appeals The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 http://www.vakilno1.com/bareacts/crpc/s377.htm Section 377 (CrPC)http://www.indianlawcases.com/Act-The.Code.of.Criminal.Procedure,.1973-1315 Case lawswww.indiankanoon.org/

BOOKS REFERED Sohonis Code Of Criminal Procedure, 20th edition, Volume IV, R. Gopal The Code of Criminal Procedure, Ratanlal & Dhirajlal The Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 by S.N. Misra The Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. By Justice Rajesh Tandon

19