The bench pointed out that trial courts must be very cautious while passing sentences, and ensure that punishments match the charges and the findings made during the trial.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday made it clear that High Courts do not have the power to act on their own (suo motu) to increase the punishment or convict a person on new charges if the state, victim, or complainant has not filed an appeal.
The verdict was given by a bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma in the case of a man named Nagarajan, who had approached the top court challenging an order passed by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court.
Background
Nagarajan was accused of entering his neighbour’s house without permission on July 11, 2003, and outraging her modesty. The woman, tragically, died by suicide the next day along with her infant child.
The trial court had acquitted Nagarajan of the serious charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (abetment of suicide). Instead, it convicted him only under Sections 354 (outraging the modesty of a woman) and 448 (house trespass) of the IPC.
Nagarajan appealed against this conviction in the High Court. But surprisingly, the High Court upheld his conviction and on its own (suo motu) convicted him for abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, and increased his sentence to five years of rigorous imprisonment.
ALSO READ: Suo Moto Cases At An All-Time High: Supreme Court Review 2024
There was no appeal filed by the victim, complainant, or the state to increase his sentence or to challenge his acquittal under Section 306.
The top court set aside the High Court’s additional conviction under Section 306 and restored the original conviction under Sections 354 and 448 IPC as ordered by the sessions court.
Quoting the bench:
“An appeal filed by the accused/convict and 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 bench said that the High Court’s action of convicting the appellant under Section 306 IPC was unjustified, since the appeal had been filed only by Nagarajan, and no other party had sought any enhancement of sentence or conviction under a new charge.
The Supreme Court ruled:
“The appellant is directed to undergo the sentence and to pay the fine as imposed by the sessions court.”
The court also took note that the High Court had ordered all sentences to run concurrently.
The bench stated:
“Thus, a conviction awarded for offences under Sections 354 and 448 of IPC has also resulted in a conviction under Section 306 of IPC and an enhanced sentence, that too, in an appeal filed by none other than the appellant.”
Explaining the unfairness of such an action, the bench said:
“The rationale of the above can be explained in simple language by stating that no appellant by filing an appeal can be worse-off than what he was.”
“That is exactly what we are seeking to reiterate in our judgment having regard to the facts of the present case.”
Justice B V Nagarathna, who authored the judgment, said the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) allows appellate courts to increase punishment or overturn acquittal only when an appeal is filed by the state, victim, or complainant.
She stated:
“Thus, the power to enhance the sentence can be exercised by the appellate court only in an appeal filed by the state, victim or complainant, provided the accused has had an opportunity of showing cause against such enhancement.”
The bench further pointed out that trial courts must be very cautious while passing sentences, and ensure that punishments match the charges and the findings made during the trial.
The court noted:
“The trial court should also be very careful while passing an order of sentence which must be ‘concomitant’ with the charges framed and the findings arrived at while arriving at a judgment of conviction.”
The Supreme Court allowed Nagarajan’s appeal partially, cancelling his conviction under Section 306 IPC but confirming his conviction under Sections 354 and 448.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
