CAN THE HIGH COURTS ENHANCE THE SENTENCE OF CONVICTION WHILE DECIDING AN APPEAL BY CONVICT? : SUPREME COURT ANSWERS IN NEGATIVE

Introduction

On 4^th June, 2025, a Two Judge Bench of the Apex Court, presided by Justice S C Sharma and Justice Nagarathna, allowed an appeal arising out of an Order of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in the case titled Nagarajan v. State of Tamil Nadu (Crl. Appeal Nos. 2892-2893 of 2025) (Date of Judgement- 04.06.2025). The Appellant had approached the Supreme Court against the Order whereby the High Court had enhanced the sentence in an appeal against conviction.

Factual background of the case

The case involves the Appellant, a neighbour of the deceased, Smt. Mariammal. On the night of July 11, 2003, the Appellant unlawfully entered her room and attempted to outrage her modesty. The deceased’s mother-in-law intervened, prompting the Appellant to flee. The following morning, both the deceased and her 1.5-year-old daughter were missing. It was later discovered that the deceased had attempted to take her elder daughter from school but was unsuccessful. Subsequently, she went to a nearby field, consumed oleander seeds, and administered poison to her infant daughter, leading to her death, while the child was rescued.

An FIR was registered under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against Nagarajan. Subsequently, the charge sheet was filed under Section 306 and 448 IPC. The Trial Court acquitted him of abetment to suicide but convicted him under Sections 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty) and 448 (house trespass), sentencing him to three years of simple imprisonment and a fine.

Upon appeal, the High Court, in addition registered a Revision alongside, exercising its suo motu revisional powers and re-examined the case. It concluded that the Appellant’s actions had significantly impacted the deceased’s self-esteem, leading to her suicide. Consequently, the High Court convicted the Appellant under Sections 306 and 448 of the IPC, sentencing him to five years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine.

Court’s Analysis

The Bench relied on the following judgments:

• Sachin vs. State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal Nos. 2073–2075 of 2025): The Court addressed whether an appellate court can enhance a sentence in an appeal filed solely by the accused. The Court emphasized that the right to appeal is a valuable statutory and constitutional right for the accused. Enhancing the sentence in such an appeal would deter individuals from exercising this right, contradicting the principles of justice.
• Jyoti Plastic Works Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and Ors.(2020 SCC OnLine Bom 2276): The Judgment reinforces the legal principle of reformatio in peius, which prohibits a higher court from imposing a more severe penalty on an appellant than what was imposed by the lower court, in the absence of a cross-appeal by the prosecution.

The Court while discussing the limits of appellate powers as provided under Section 386(b)(iii) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), held that an appellate court, in an appeal from a conviction, may alter the nature or extent of the sentence which includes enhancement of sentence but cannot do so in absence of an appeal filed by the State or victim.

The Bench further discussed the role of Section 401 CrPC. It held, while the High Court possesses revisional powers under Sections 397 and 401 of the CrPC, it cannot invoke these powers to enhance a sentence in an appeal filed by the accused unless the State or complainant has filed a separate appeal seeking such enhancement.

Right to Appeal: The Court emphasized that the right to appeal is a constitutional right for the accused. Enhancing the sentence in such an appeal would deter individuals from exercising this right, contradicting the principles of justice. An accused has the right to appeal a conviction and sentence on both substantive and procedural grounds. This includes challenging the merits of the decision and any procedural errors or lapses during the trial. The appellate court is obligated to assess whether the trial was conducted fairly and in accordance with the law, from the perspective of accused. Depending on its findings, the appellate court may, acquit the accused, order a retrial, reduce the sentence while upholding the conviction, or dismiss the appeal. This process ensures that the accused’s rights are protected and that any judicial errors are addressed. It is further pertinent to mention, that a high court cannot act as a revisional court while approaching a matter as an appellate court.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court held that in an appeal filed by the accused challenging conviction and sentence, the appellate court cannot enhance the sentence. Such enhancement is permissible only when the State or the Complainant files a separate appeal seeking it. This decision safeguards the accused’s right to appeal without the risk of facing a harsher sentence solely due to exercising this right.

 

YASH HARI DIXIT

ASSOCIATE

THE INDIAN LAWYER AND ALLIED SERVICES

Please log on to our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips, to learn about various aspects of the law. Our latest video, titled- “Surrogacy Laws in India Explained | Who Can Be a Surrogate? | Advocate Sushila Ram Varma” can be viewed at the link below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvFtWfxlp1k&t=6s