Judgment Amar Dutt, J. 1. Appellant-Piara Singh is aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, which has been recorded against him by the Sessions Judge, Amritsar vide his judgment dated 25.2.2002 has filed the present appeal. 2. Briefly stated, appellant-Piara Singh was tried by the Sessions Judge, Amritsar for having intentionally and knowingly caused the death of Pritam Dass and Pishori Lal. On account of this, following two charges were framed against him :- "That you on or about 3/4-8-1998 in the area of Bus Stand Dhota did commit murder by intentionally and knowingly causing death of Pritam Dass and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of the Court of Sessions. Secondly, on the same date, time and place, you inflicted injuries on the person of Pishori Lal as a result of which he died on 9.8.l998 and as such you intentionally and knowingly caused death of aforesaid Pishori Lal and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of the Court of Sessions." 3. Before the trial Court, the prosecution had examined thirteen witnesses and after recording the explanation offered by appellant-Piara Singh in relation to incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against him and affording him an opportunity of leading evidence in defence, the Sessions Judge, Amritsar had come to the following conclusion :- "The net result of my aforesaid discussion is that the prosecution has undoubtedly proved that accused aforesaid had inflicted the injuries on the persons of Pritam Dass and Pishori Lal, when, they were sleeping outside their shop in the night with the intention of causing their death. The accused is, accordingly, convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code." 4. After this, the appellant was heard on the question of sentence and the following order had been passed by the trial Court :- "After having convicted the accused, aforesaid, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, I have heard him, his counsel and the Public Prosecutor for the State as regards the sentence to be inflicted upon him. It has been prayed that he may be dealt with leniency stating that accused is an old person. It has been prayed that he may be dealt with leniency stating that accused is an old person. Keeping into consideration the totality of the facts on the file, I sentence accused Piara Singh to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, he will further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. File is ordered to be consigned to records." 5. We have heard Ms. G.K. Mann, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. M.S. Sidhu, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab and perused the record. 6. During the course of arguments, it came to our notice that though the appellant stood charged for committing murders of Pritam Dass and Pishori Lal yet sentence had been awarded to him only on one count. The sentence does not indicate as to for which of the murders appellant has been sentenced. 7. From a perusal of the above order, it is apparent that the learned Sessions Judge, Amritsar had committed an error apparent on the face of record i.e. his failure to award separate sentences to Piara Singh on account of his having committed murder of Pishori Lal and Pritam Dass. In view of this, the order pertaining to the sentence has to be set aside and a direction is to be issued to the trial Court to pass a fresh order on the question of sentence only in accordance with law. 8. This view of ours is supported by the observations of the decision of this Court in State of Punjab v. Gurvail Singh @ Gela and another, Murder Reference No. 3 of 2005 decided on September 8, 2005 in which, this Court has held as under :- "while passing the sentence, the trial Court had ignored the provisions of Section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which obliges it to pass separate sentence on each of the charge which had been framed. In this case, only one sentence has been imposed on the appellants for the murders of Kulwant Singh, Sarabjit Kaur, Gurvinder Singh and Davinder Singh for which they have been convicted i.e. sentence of death penalty on the appellants Gurvail Singh @ Gela and Jaj Singh; sentence of life imprisonment on the appellant Amarjit Kaur; and sentence of community service for five years from 18.3.2005 on the appellant Satnam Singh. Neither the learned counsel for the appellants nor the learned counsel for the State have been able to dispute this interpretation of legal provisions referred to by us here-in-before. 9. In view of the above, the sentence imposed by the Court below in the present case cannot be upheld and we, accordingly, set aside the judgment in relation to the sentence alone and remand the case back to the trial Court for a fresh decision on the question of sentence after giving the appellant another opportunity for placing any material on record and thereafter pass a fresh order of sentence in accordance with law within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, whereafter in case the appellant is dissatisfied with the sentence, it would be open to him to challenge the same by filing a fresh appeal. If the conviction and sentence is challenged by the appellant again, as the paper book containing entire evidence has already been prepared, the Registry is directed to obtain necessary orders for listing the same for hearing within three months. The record of the trial Court be sent forthwith. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the trial Court on 12.6.2006.