1984 INSC 0237
                                              Surjit Singh and Others

                                                           Vs

                                                   State of Punjab

                                        Criminal Appeal No. 454 of 1984

                                        (D. A. Desai, Ranganath Misra JJ)

                                                      31.08.1984

                                                        ORDER

1. Special leave granted limited to the question whether the High Court without issuing notice and
affording an opportunity to the appellant to be heard had jurisdiction to enhance the sentence by
imposing a fine of Rs 5,000 in addition to the sentence of imprisonment for life imposed by the trial
court.

2. The appellants, Surjit Singh and Harjinder Singh were convicted for committing murder of
Bachan Singh under Section 302 IPC and each of them was sentenced to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for life by the learned Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. They preferred Criminal Appeal 283
of 1983 to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

3. While dismissing the appeal of the appellants a Division Bench of the High Court observed "that
Surjit Singh and Harjinder Singh who had been proved to have committed the murder of Bachan
Singh in quite a ruthless manner as is apparent from the number of injuries found on the person of
the deceased". The High Court further observed that it is a fit case in which over and above the
sentence of imprisonment for life imposed by the trial court a fine of Rs 5,000 in default to suffer
further rigorous imprisonment for two years must be imposed on the appellants. The additional
sentence imposed by the High Court unquestionably constitutes an enhancement of sentence. The
High Court did not issue notice calling upon the appellants to show cause why the sentence imposed
upon them be not enhanced before doing so. Rules of natural justice as also the prescribed
procedure require that the sentence imposed on the accused cannot be enhanced without giving
notice to the appellants and the opportunity to be heard on the proposed action. The record does not
show that such a notice and opportunity were given to the appellants and in the absence of notice the
appellants had no opportunity to contest the proposed action. Therefore, we allow this appeal
limited to the question that the sentence of fine of Rs 5,000 and the default sentence imposed on
each appellant by the High Court is quashed and set aside confirming the sentence of imprisonment
for life imposed by the trial court. The appeal is allowed to the extent herein indicated.

</html