How did the Court distinguish its earlier ruling in Sachin v. State of Maharashtra, which restrained a High Court from enhancing a sentence suo motu in an appeal filed by the accused, from the facts of this case?

Paragraph 21We find that having regard to the facts of this case, the judgment in the case of Sachin cannot be applied mechanically. In Sachin, the appellant had assailed the judgment of conviction and sentence and there was no issue with regard to there being inadequate sentence or a sentence being imposed contrary to the statutory prescription. It was in those circumstances that relief was granted in the case of Sachin but in the instant case while there was a challenge to the judgment of conviction and sentence, the High Court noted that the sentence imposed was contrary to what has been stipulated under Section 376D of IPC. The minimum sentence under the said provision is twenty years but may extend to life which shall mean imprisonment for remainder of that person’s natural life and with fine. The Sessions Court instead of imposing the minimum sentence of twenty years imposed a sentence of twelve years. There being a breach of the stipulation under Section 376D of IPC, the High Court while dismissing the appeals filed by the accused/appellants and affirming the judgment of conviction also exercised suo motu revisional powers under Section 401 CrPC to enhance the sentence awarded to the appellants. The expression “but not so as to 22 enhance the same” under Section 386(b)(iii) CrPC cannot, in our view, come in the way of the High Court exercising its revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 CrPC in order to comply with Section 376D of IPC. This is not a case where the appellants became worse off in their appeals before the High Court. Noting the glaring error in imposition of the sentence on the appellant herein, the High Court, in our view, was justified in exercising its suo motu revisional powers under Section 401 CrPC. Therefore, we find that the facts and circumstances which emanated in Sachin are quite distinct from the facts and circumstances of the present case. Moreover, the High Court enhanced the sentence after complying with the principles of natural justice while exercising its suo motu revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 CrPC. Hence, the judgment in Sachin has to be distinguished from the present case for the aforesaid reasons. Therefore, the said judgment will not apply to a case where the Sessions Court on misreading the provision of the IPC has imposed a sentence below what is stipulated in the IPC as in the instant case. Hence, we are unable to apply the ratio of Sachin to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 23