Appellate enhancement of sentence requires manifest inadequacy; the High Court's increase was set aside and the original sentence restored.

Appellate enhancement of criminal sentence is justified only where the original punishment is manifestly inadequate and strong reasons for interference are evident on the record. Applying that standard, the SC found that the case arose from a sudden quarrel without premeditation, with a scuffle reflected in the facts and the Sessions Court having already imposed a substantial sentence. The High Court's reasons did not demonstrate that the original sentence under section 304 of the Indian Penal Code was manifestly inadequate. The enhanced sentence was therefore set aside and the sentence imposed by the Sessions Court was restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in enhancing the sentence imposed on the appellant for an offence under section 304 of the Indian Penal Code.

Analysis: Sentence is a matter of judicial discretion, and appellate interference to the detriment of an accused is warranted only for strong reasons disclosed on the face of the record. In cases of enhancement, interference is justified only where the original sentence is manifestly inadequate. The accepted facts showed a sudden quarrel, absence of premeditation, and circumstances indicating a scuffle, with the Sessions Court having already imposed a substantial sentence. The High Court's reasons did not show that the original punishment was manifestly inadequate.

Conclusion: The enhancement of sentence was not justified, and the appellant was entitled to restoration of the sentence imposed by the Sessions Court.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on the question of sentence, the enhanced sentence was set aside, and the original sentence was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: Appellate enhancement of sentence is permissible only when the original sentence is manifestly inadequate and the reasons for interference are strong and apparent on the record.

---