The Supreme Court ruled that a High Court cannot enhance a convict’s sentence on its own. It stated, “HC can’t enhance sentence or act as revisional court without appeal by State or victim.”
The Supreme Court ruled that the High Court cannot exercise suo motu revision to either increase the sentence or convict the appellant on any other charges in an appeal filed by the appellant, especially when there is no plea from the victim, complainant, or the State.
A bench comprising Justices B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma stated that it is the appellate court’s responsibility to review the appeal from the perspective of the accused to determine if there is a valid case on merits.
Also Read: MP High Court Reduces Sentence of Man Convicted of Raping Mentally Disabled Minor
The appellate court may either set aside the trial court’s judgment to acquit the accused, remand the case for a re-trial, reduce the sentence while upholding the conviction, or dismiss the appeal.
The bench elaborated,
“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 court clarified that no appellant should be worse off after filing an appeal.
Referring to Section 368 of the CrPC, the bench emphasized,
“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.”
It noted that the right to appeal is both a statutory and constitutional privilege for an accused.
Also Read: Life Sentence Reversed | Supreme Court Upholds Juvenile Claims
The court affirmed that an accused is entitled to challenge the judgment on both merit and procedural grounds, questioning any flaws or lapses in the trial court’s judgment. It reiterated that if the State, complainant, or victim, who have the right to appeal, choose not to do so, the High Court cannot initiate a revision on their behalf.
Moreover, if a revision application is mistakenly filed under the belief that it is the correct route, the High Court can treat it as an appeal and handle it as such.
Under Section 401 of the CrPC, the High Court cannot convert an acquittal into a conviction through its revisional powers. This fundamental principle also applies to mean that the High Court cannot increase the sentence imposed by a trial court in an appeal filed by the accused/convict.
The court ultimately set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Nagarajan, under Section 306 of the IPC for abetment to suicide, while upholding the Sessions Court’s judgment regarding the charges under Sections 354 and 448 IPC.
The facts reveal that the accused entered the victim’s home on the night of July 11, 2003, attempted to outrage her modesty, and ran away after being confronted by her mother-in-law. The victim, along with her infant daughter, took her own life the following day.
Also Read: Calcutta High Court Replaces Death Sentence with Life Term in Brutal Stabbing Case
The trial court had acquitted the appellant of the abetment charge but sentenced him to three years of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs 25,000.
However, upon appeal, the High Court exercised suo motu revision jurisdiction, convicted him under Section 306 IPC, and increased his sentence to five years, claiming that the appellant had significantly undermined the deceased’s self-esteem, instigating her suicide.