JUDGMENT

S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, J.- Special leave granted.

2. The notice was issued on the special leave petition limited to the question whether the High Court had jurisdiction to enhance the sentence without issuing notice and affording to the appellant an opportunity of showing cause against such enhancement of the sentence, or in the absence of an appeal by the State for enhancement of sentence on the ground of inadequacy.

3. This appellant along with two others were convicted for murdering Kumari Mangala in furtherance of their common intention and causing disappearance of evidence of the said offence with the intention of screening themselves from legal punishment under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and under Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC respectively and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life under the first count and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs 2500 each with a default clause and directed both the substantive sentences to run concurrently.

4. They all preferred Criminal Appeal No. 284 of 1987 before the High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad which set aside the conviction of all the convicted accused inclusive of this appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and the conviction of other two under Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC but confirmed the conviction of this appellant under Section 201 IPC and enhanced the sentence to 7 years rigorous imprisonment.

5. The High Court neither issued notice to the appellant nor afforded him any opportunity of showing cause against the said enhancement while enhancing the sentence. Admittedly, there was no appeal by the State for enhancement of sentence under Section 377 CrPC on the ground of its inadequacy.

6. Let punishment fit the crime is one of the main objects of the sentencing policy. To achieve this object, the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the High Court to enhance the sentence in appropriate cases where the sentence awarded by the subordinate courts is grossly inadequate or unconscionably lenient or flea-bite or is not commensurate with the gravity of the offence. The High Court enjoys the power of enhancing the sentence either in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 read with Section 401 or in its appellate jurisdiction under Section 377 read with Section 386(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code) subject to the provisos (1) and (2) to Section 386 of the Code. It may be stated in this connection that it is permissible for the High Court while exercising its revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 read with Section 401 IPC to exercise the power of a court of appeal under Section 386(c) for enhancement of sentence.

7. This Court in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab{(1979) 4 SCC 754} while dealing with the revisional powers of the High Court has ruled thus: (SCC pp. 756-57, paras 10 and 11)

"... in respect of the petition which was filed under Section 401 CrPC for the exercise of the High Courts power of revision, it was permissible for it to exercise the power of a court of appeal under Section 386 for enhancement of the sentence... The High Courts power of revision in the case of any proceeding the record of which has been called for by it or which otherwise comes to its knowledge, has been stated in Section 401 CrPC to which reference has been made above. That includes the power conferred on a court of appeal under Section 386 to enhance or reduce the sentence."

8. Under Section 377(1) of the Code, the State Government in any case of conviction on a trial held by any court other than the High Court is empowered to direct the public prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court against the sentence on the ground of its inadequacy. Under sub-section (2) of Section 377, the Central Government under the circumstances stated therein is empowered to direct the public prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court for enhancement of sen