1

CRIMINAL LAW-II
PROJECT

Appeal by the State Government against Sentence




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


2
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.








3
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




4
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.














5
PROJECT SYNOPSIS
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Research 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 Objective
The 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 Limitations
The 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.

6
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, 20
th
edition, Volume IV, R. Gopal
The 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 & Dhirajlal
Provision 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. Misra
Study 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 Tandon
Various case laws relating to the state appeals have been reffered from this book.





7

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1 Introduction.8
Chapter 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















8
Chapter 1 : Introduction
Section 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 41
st
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.

9
An appeal under this section may be filed by 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
Establishment Act 1946:or
(b) Any other agency empowered to investigate into an offence under Central Act other
than this Code











10
CHAPTER 2: BODY
2.1 SCOPE OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 377
Until 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.
1

An appeal against the inadequacy of sentence, imposed either by the trial court or the appellate
court, will lie only to the High Court.

1
State of Rajasthan v Roopdan 1979 Raj Cr C 348.
11
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.
2

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.
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.
In State of Uttar Pradesh v Dharmendra Singh & Ors,
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

2
Nafiz Agha alias Munna v State 1979 All Cr C 118
3
State of Karnataka v Embichi Ahmed ILR 1990 Kar 598.
4
AIR 1999 SC 3789
12
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.
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.
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.
6

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.
7




5
Eknath Shankarrao Mukkawar v State of Maharashtra AIR 1977 SC 1177
6
Sahab Singh v State of Haryana AIR 1990 SC 1188
7
State v Tekam Singh 1988 Cr Lj 1240 (Del)
13
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.
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.
9

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.
10


8
Surendra Singh Rautela v State of Bihar AIR 2002 SC 260
9
V Ranganayaki v VI Srinath & ors 2002 Cr LJ 154 (AP).
10
Mohinder Singh v Satbir Singh 1984 Cr LT 318 (P&H).
14
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.
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:
12

(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


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.
15
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:
13

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

13
Khemraj v State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1976 Sc 173, (1976) SCC 410, 1976 Cr LJ 195, 1976 SCC (Cr) 28.
16
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.
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.
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.
16

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.
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

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.
17
State of Kerala v Sivadasan (1988) 1 Crimes 72
17
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.
18

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/-.
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.
20

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.
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

18
State v P Manohara 2003 Cr LI. 1002 (Kant).
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).
21
Bachan Singh v State of Punjab AIR 1980 Sc 267, 1983 Mad Li (Cr) 175, (1983), 1 SCR 145.
18
enhancement.
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.
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.
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.
24

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.







22
Surjit Singh v State of Punjab 1985 Cr ILJ 358
23
Surendra Singh Rautela v State of Bihar AIR 2002 SC 260
24
Kaloo Khan v State of Madhya Pradesh 2001 Cr LJ 873 (MP), 2001(2) Crimes 95 (MP).
19
CHAPTER 3: CONCLUSION & SUGGESTIONS
Earlier 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.
20
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.
















21
REFERENCES
WEBSITES REFERED
Appeals against sentence
http://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 laws
www.indiankanoon.org/

BOOKS REFERED
Sohonis Code Of Criminal Procedure, 20
th
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