High Courts Can’t Enhance Sentence Suo Motu Without State or Victim’s Appeal: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that in an appeal filed by the accused or convict and in the absence of any plea filed by the victim, complainant or the State, the High Court cannot exercise suo motu revision either to enhance the sentence or to convict the appellant on any other charge.

A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma said that the rationale of it can be explained in simple language by stating that no appellant by filing an appeal can be worse-off than what he was.

Citing Section 368 CrPC which deal with the power of the appellate court, the bench said, "A right of appeal is an invaluable right, particularly for an accused who cannot be condemned eternally by a trial judge, without having a right to seek a re-look of the Trial Court’s judgment by a superior or appellate court."

The court pointed out the right to prefer an appeal is not only a statutory right but also a constitutional right in the case of an accused.

"This is because an accused has a right to not only challenge a judgment on its merits, namely, with respect to the conviction and sentence being imposed on him, but also on the procedural aspects of the trial," the bench said.

The court pointed out an accused can question procedural flaws, impropriety and lapses that may have been committed by the Trial Court in arriving at the judgment of conviction and imposition of sentence in an appeal filed against the same. It then becomes the duty of the appellate court to consider the appeal from the perspective of the accused-appellant therein to see if he has a good case on merits, and to set aside the judgment of the Trial Court and acquit the accused, or to remand the matter for a re-trial in accordance with law, or to reduce the sentence while maintaining the conviction or, in the alternative, to dismiss the appeal.

"In our considered view, the appellate court in an appeal filed by the accused cannot while maintaining the conviction enhance the sentence. While exercising its appellate jurisdiction, the High Court cannot act as a revisional court, particularly, when no appeal or revision has been filed either by the State, victim or complainant for seeking enhancement of sentence against accused," the bench said.

Relying upon Sachin vs. State of Maharashtra, decided on April 21, 2025, the bench also dealt with the power of revision under Section 401 CrPC.

The court said, if a State, complainant or the victim who has the right to file an appeal does not opt to do so, then the High Court cannot entertain a revision at its behest. Also, if an appeal lies under the CrPC but an application for revision has been made to the High Court by any person under an erroneous belief, then the High Court can treat the application for revision as petition of appeal and deal with the same accordingly.

"What is pertinent is that under Section 401 of CrPC, the High Court is not authorised to convert the findings of acquittal into one of conviction by exercise of revisional jurisdiction. This salutary principle can be extended to also mean that the High Court cannot enhance the sentence imposed by a Trial Court on conviction in an appeal filed by the accused/convict," the bench said.

Thus, the bench said, in sum and substance, it can be observed that in an appeal filed by the accused seeking setting aside of the conviction of sentence, the High Court cannot exercise its revisional powers and while affirming the conviction direct for enhancement of sentence, when actually appeal could have been filed by the State, complainant or the victim and has not been filed.

Therefore, where an appeal has been filed by the accused challenging the conviction and the sentence, the revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised by the High Court so as to remand the matter to the Trial Court for the purpose of enhancement of the sentence, it held.

The court examined the issue when an accused is seeking setting-aside of a judgment of conviction and sentence, can the High Court, in the absence of there being any challenge to the same from any other quarter, suo motu exercise its revisional power and thereby condemn the accused by awarding an enhancement in his sentence.

The matter arose out of an appeal filed by Nagarajan against November 29, 2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras Bench at Madurai dismissing the criminal appeal by the appellant and allowing the suo motu revision, thereby convicting him under Sections 306 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

According to the prosecution, the appellant was the neighbour of the deceased Smt Mariammal. On the night of July 11, 2003, the appellant forcefully entered the room of the deceased and while hugging her, attempted to outrage her modesty. The mother-in-law of the deceased intervened and scolded the appellant, who then fled from the premises. The next day, the woman along with her infant daughter ended her life.

The Trial Court acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 306 of IPC and convicted him under Sections 354 and 448 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three years and one month and to pay a fine of Rs 25,000.

On his appeal, the High Court suo motu directed the registration of a criminal revision case to examine the propriety of the acquittal. By the impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed the criminal appeal by the appellant and allowed the suo motu criminal revision petition, thereby convicting the appellant under Sections 306 and 448 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs 5,000.

The High Court observed that the appellant had played an active role in tarnishing the self-esteem of the deceased by outraging her modesty and thereby instigated her to commit suicide. Hence, the offence under Section 306 of IPC was made out.

Holding that in the absence of any appeal filed by the victim, complainant or the State, the High Court cannot exercise suo motu revision either to enhance the sentence or to convict the appellant on any other charge, the top court set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 306 of IPC and confirmed the judgment of the Sessions Court as affirmed by the High Court qua the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 448 IPC.

Case Title: Nagarajan Vs State of Tamil Nadu

Download judgment here