Want to be a
Soolegal Member
Team SoOLEGAL
23 Apr 2019 10:18am

FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENHANCING THE SENTENCE IN APPEAL BY CONVICT, A NOTICE OF ENHANCEMENT HAS TO BE ISSUED TO HIM: Supreme Court

0
0
4
0

The Trial Court sentenced Kumar Ghimirey to 7 years imprisonment on the charges of sexual assault of a 7 year old girl. When he appealed to the High Court, Sikkim High Court, his sentence was enhanced to 10 years imprisonment.

The accused referred to a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment in Sahab Singh vs. State of Haryana in which it was held that that the High Court even if no appeal is filed by the State for enhancement of sentence can exercise suo motu power of revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. but before the High Court can exercise its revisional jurisdiction to enhance the sentence, it is imperative that the convict is put on notice.

His contention before the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice KM Joseph was that the procedure prescribed under Section 386 proviso of the Criminal Procedure Code has not been followed by the High Court because no notice for enhancement was issued to him. The counsel for the opposite party, i.e., State did not refuse this contention.

The contention of the accused, that a minimum sentence of five years only should have been imposed on him, was rejected by the Supreme Court bench.

The bench affirmed the Trial Court's judgment in the following words:

"The Special Judge has noted that the offence committed against the minor girl child (7 years) cannot be viewed lightly, we fully endorse the view of the learned Special Judge and considering the serious nature of the 17 offence the conviction of seven years RI need no interference in this appeal." 


Tagged: Supreme Court Enhancement Sentence Justice Ashok Bhushan Justice KM Joseph
Did you find this write-up useful? YES 0 NO 0
Active Members view all

New Members view all