What is the legality of enhancing the sentence without giving the accused notice and opportunity to show cause? What is the proper procedure under Section 386 Cr.P.C. for enhancement of sentence in an appeal against conviction? What are the permissible limits on enhancing or altering an already-imposed sentence in an appeal from conviction?

Key Points: - The High Court’s enhancement of the POCSO sentence from seven to ten years without notice to the accused was held unsustainable and set aside (!) . - Section 386 Cr.P.C. outlines that in an appeal from a conviction, enhancement of sentence is permitted, but only with the accused having an opportunity to show cause against such enhancement (proviso to Section 386) (!) (!) (!) . - The case reiterates that when exercising revisional or appellate powers to enhance, due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard; failure to do so violates legal procedure as established in Surjit Singh and Govind Ramji Jadhav line of authorities (!) (!) (!) . - The judgment confirms that the appellate court may enhance in an appeal for enhancement, but not beyond the maximum that could have been inflicted by the trial court, and only after proper procedure (!) (!) . - The Court maintains the trial court’s seven-year sentence under POCSO Act and one month under IPC §341, while setting aside the High Court’s enhancement (!) .

What is the legality of enhancing the sentence without giving the accused notice and opportunity to show cause?

What is the proper procedure under Section 386 Cr.P.C. for enhancement of sentence in an appeal against conviction?

What are the permissible limits on enhancing or altering an already-imposed sentence in an appeal from conviction?