A substantial sentence should not be enhanced unless it is manifestly inadequate or strong reasons justify interference.

The State appealed under Section 418 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking enhancement of the sentence imposed on the respondent for offences under Sections 363, 366 and 354A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 8 and 18 of the POCSO Act.

The trial court sentenced him to three years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹5,000 for each stated grouping of offences, with three months’ simple imprisonment in default of payment.

The State argued that the sentence was inadequate and sought the maximum punishment.

The High Court considered the trial court’s reasons, including the respondent’s age, lack of prior criminal antecedents, and prospects of rehabilitation.

Whether the sentence imposed by the trial court was manifestly inadequate so as to warrant enhancement by the High Court.

Whether the trial court’s sentencing discretion was exercised on adequate reasons and therefore should be left undisturbed.

Section 418 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provides the basis for the State’s appeal seeking enhancement of sentence.

Under the principle stated in Bed Raj v. State of U.P., AIR 1955 SC 778, sentencing is a matter of judicial discretion; an appellate court should not interfere to an accused’s detriment where that discretion has been properly exercised along accepted judicial lines, except for strong reasons disclosed in the judgment.

Enhancement is warranted where the sentence is manifestly inadequate, rather than merely because the appellate court might have imposed a different sentence.

The trial court also relied on Section 71 of the IPC in concluding that, in the circumstances it identified, a separate sentence should not be imposed for the Section 363 offence in addition to the Section 366 offence.

The High Court found that the trial court had considered the parties’ submissions and given reasons for its sentencing decision, including the respondent’s age, lack of criminal antecedents, personal circumstances, and prospects of rehabilitation, while also taking account of the nature and seriousness of the offences.

Applying Bed Raj, it held that the three-year terms of rigorous imprisonment and fines did not establish a case of manifestly inadequate punishment, and that the trial court’s exercise of discretion was not perverse or illegal.

The State had therefore not shown the strong grounds required for appellate enhancement.

It dismissed the appeal in limine and directed that the records and proceedings be returned to the concerned court.