Sentence/Sentencing: Fixed term sentence - Imposition of, permissibility - Held: It is within the domain of judiciary to direct that convict shall suffer actual incarnation for a specific period- Fixed term sentence cannot be said to be unauthorised in law. Principle of sentencing - Held: The appellate court cannot impose a sentence beyond the competence of the trial court - If the D trial court has no jurisdiction to impose a particular sentence, the High Court as a "Court of error" cannot pass a different harsher sentence. Sentencing in multiple offences - Concurrent or consecutive - In the instant case, trial court imposed life sentence and directed E all the sentences to run concurrent - High Court declined to enhance the sentence from imprisonment for life to death, but imposed a fixed term sentence - Whether a person sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life when visited with the 'term sentence' should suffer them consecutively or concurrently - Held: High Court did F not direct that the sentence u/ss.201/34 !PC shall run first and, thereafter, the fixed term sentence will commence - As the High Court has not done it, it is held inappropriate in the appeal preferred by the appellants to do so - Therefore, sentence imposed for the offence punishable ulss. 201/34 !PC to run concurrently with the sentence imposed for other offences by the High Court """' Penal G Code, 1860 - ss  .201/34.Fixed term sentence - lmposition of - Honour killing - Nitish Katara case - High Court imposed a fixed term sentence i.e. 25 years for offence uls.302 !PC -Appellant's plea that the court can either impose sentence of imprisonment for life or sentence of death but it is not permissible to impose any other fixed term sentence - Held: The circumstantial evidence by which the crime was established, clearly led to one singular conclusion that the anger of the accused persons on the involvement of the sister with the deceased, was the only motive behind crime - Crime was committed in planned and cold blooded manner with a motive that emanated from unwarranted superiority based on caste feeling that blinded the thought of choice available to a sister - The factum of "honour killing" was a seminal ground for imposing the fixed term sentence of twenty-five years for the offences under ss. 302/34 IPC on the two accused persons, who though highly educated had not cultivated the ability to abandon the depricable feelings and attitude prevailing for centuries - Even after murdering the victim-deceased, the accused displayed their vengeance by destroying the body of the deceased which demonstrated the criminal tendency for they had neither respect for human life nor any concern for the dignity of a dead person - The brutality displayed by accused persons clearly exposed depraved state of mind - Imposition of fixed term on appellants cannot be found fault with. A B C D Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.433-A - Exercise of power under, scope - Held: Statutory power uls. 433-A can be curtailed when the Court is of the considered opinion that the fact situation deserves a sentence of incarnation which be for a fixed E term so that power of remission is not exercised - Sentence/ Sentencing. Constitution of India: Arts. 71 and 161 -Judicial review, scope - Held: The courts cannot embark upon the power to be exercised by the Executive Heads of the State under Art. 71 and Art.161 of the Constitution.