JUDGMENT:- Leave granted. 2. The appellants have called in question the judgment of the High Court of Kerala dated 14-6-1994 vide which while the conviction of the appellants for an offence under Section 304 Part I, I.P.C. was maintained, the sentence was enhanced from ten years rigorous imprisonment, as imposed by the learned trial Court, to imprisonment for life. On 26th September, 1994, notice was issued confined to the question of sentence only. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. The occurrence originated from a trivial controversy over an audio cassette borrowed by deceased Appachan From A2. Before the occurrence, there was a quarrel about the return of the audio cassette when deceased Appachan is alleged to have slapped PW-2. The Trial Court considered the totality of the circumstances and came to the conclusion that at the time of the occurrence PW-2 had provoked the appellant with his abuses and challenges on the road which had resulted in a scuffle between the two factions. The trial Court, after accepting the evidence of PW-16, as the most reliable piece of evidence, arrived at the conclusion that in the established facts of the case the offence for which the appellants could be convicted, would not be the one under Section 302/34, but would fall under Section 304, Part I read with Section 34, I.P.C. imposing the sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment. After a detailed discussion, the trial Court observed : "I have anxiously considered the pleas of the accused. It is found that the quarrel which resulted in the death of a young man and his old father sprang from a trivial controversy over a single audio cassette. The accused persons did not hesitate to precipitate controversy into a gruesome tragedy and bring about a great calamity on the family of the victims. So I feel that the accused Nos. 1 and 2 do not deserve any commiserative consideration. The evidence does not reveal any extenuating circumstances. However I am convinced that the ends of Justice do not warrant the maximum sentence of life imprisonment provided under Section 304, Part I, I.P.C. A lesser sentence appears to be sufficient in the interest of Justice. The accused Nos. 1 and 2 are therefore sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years (ten years) for the offences under Section 304, Part I read with Section 34. The accused Nos. 1 and 2 are therefore sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years (ten years) for the offences under Section 304, Part I read with Section 34. I.P.C. They are directed to serve the sentence in the Central Prison, Trivandrum." 5. The High Court, in exercise of the suo motu powers of revision, after issuing notice to the appellants, while maintaining their conviction for the offence under Section 304, Part I I.P.C, enhanced the sentence to imprisonmentfor life. We find that the High Court did not look into the background of the incident or the fact situation that was prevailing at the time of the assault. The High Court also did not deal with, much less consider and discuss, the various circumstances which were taken into consideration by the trial Court for not imposing the maximum sentence prescribed under Section 304, Part I, I.P.C. The High Court, as is seen from its judgment, has nowhere opined that the reasons given by the trial Court for not imposing the maximum sentence, prescribed under Section 304, Part I, I.P.C, were either perverse or so unreasonable, as no Court could have advanced the same. Indeed, there is power of enhancement of the sentence available with the High Court but, that power has to be sparingly exercised. Depending upon the facts and circumstances of a given case, the High Court may enhance the sentence, if it finds that the reasons given by the trial Court for imposing the lesser sentence, to be wholly unsatisfactory, irrelevant, unreasonable or perverse. The High Court, in the instant case, enhanced the sentence from 10 years R. I. to life imprisonment without recording any such finding. We are, therefore, of the opinion that only because the High Court looked at the case from a different angle, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it did not justify the enhancement of the sentence. The judgment of the High Court enhancing the sentence of the appellants from ten years R. 1. to life imprisonment for the offence under Section 304, Part I, I.P.C, therefore, cannot be sustained. We, accordingly, accept these appeals and set aside that part of the judgment of the High Court by which the sentence was enhanced and restore the sentence as imposed by the trial Court for the offence under Section 304 Part I/34 I.P.C. 6. to life imprisonment for the offence under Section 304, Part I, I.P.C, therefore, cannot be sustained. We, accordingly, accept these appeals and set aside that part of the judgment of the High Court by which the sentence was enhanced and restore the sentence as imposed by the trial Court for the offence under Section 304 Part I/34 I.P.C. 6. The appeals, are, accordingly, allowed to the extent indicated above. Appeals partly allowed. For Citation: 1995 AIR SCW 3126