Judgement

BOSE, J. : The only question here is about sentence.

2. The appellant Bed Raj and another, Sri Chand, were jointly charged with the murder of one Pheru. The Sessions Judge convicted Bed Raj under S. 304, Penal Code, and sentenced him to three years rigorous imprisonment. He acquitted Sri Chand.

3. Bed Raj appealed to the High Court and that Court, on admitting the appeal for hearing, issued notice to the appellant to show cause why the sentence should not be enhanced. The appeal and the revision were heard together. The appeal was disimissed and the High Court enhanced the sentence to ten years.

4. Now, though no limitation has been placed on the High Court s power to enhance it is nevertheless a judicial act and, like all judicial acts involving an exercise of discretion, must be exercised along well-known judicial lines. The only question before us is whether those lines have been observed in the present case.

5. The facts that have been found by the Sessions Judge and accepted by the High Court are to be found in the opening paragraph of the learned Sessions Judge s judgment. They are as follows :

"Roop Chand, the son of Bed Raj accused, was removing the dung of the bulloc