| The appellants were convicted by the court of sessions for an offence punishable under section 396 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life. |
| They were held to have shot dead two inmates of a house in which along with others they had gone to commit dacoity. |
| One of the appellants filed an appeal in the High Court against his conviction. |
| The High Court thereafter gave notice to both the appellants to show cause why the sentence of imprisonment passed against each of them should not be enhanced to death. |
| After hearing them the High Court sentenced them both to death. |
| The order was challenged in this Court and it was urged that the High Court should not have interfered with the discretion of the Sessions Judge in the matter of passing the appropriate sentence and that the considerations which apply to I sentence under section 302 I.P.C. would not apply to a case under section 396 I.P.C. HELD : (i) The offence committed by the appellants was heinous and committed in cold blood with the sole object of committing dacoity. |
| It was not a case of constructive liability but the appellants had themselves committed the murders and therefore no advantage could be taken of the fact that the conviction was under section 396 and not under section 302. |
| On the above facts the enhancement of sentence by the High Court from life imprisonment to death was justified especially when the trial court had not given any reasons for awarding the lesser sentence. |
| In Dalip Singh 's case this Court only cautioned the appellate court against interfering if the discretion of the trying judge is exercised for reasons recorded by him and if it appears from the reasons that he had exercised a judicial mind in not awarding the sentence of death. |
| [612 F 613B]. |
| Dalip Singh & Ors. |
| vs State of Punjab ; , 156, explained. |
| Lal Singh vs Emperor, A.I.R. 1938 Alld. |
| 625, distinguished. |
|
|
