Supreme Court Clarifies: High Court Cannot Enhance Sentence Suo Motu in Appeals Filed by Convicts — Key Judgment Explained

Introduction

In a significant judgment released on June 9, 2025, the Supreme Court reaffirmed a crucial constitutional safeguard: a High Court lacks the authority to employ suo motu (on its own motion) revisional powers to intensify the punishment of an appellant who has filed an appeal against conviction. The Court clarified that such a move is impermissible under Indian criminal procedure, particularly in the absence of an appeal or revision petition filed by the State, victim, or complainant.

The Facts at the Heart of the Dispute

The case concerned one Nagarajan, who was convicted at the trial court level under two charges: trespass (Section 448 IPC) and outraging a woman's modesty (Section 354 IPC). The same court acquitted him of the grave offense of abetting suicide (Section 306 IPC). Sentenced to three years’ imprisonment, Nagarajan challenged the verdict by filing an appeal in the Madras High Court.

In an unusual turn, the Madras High Court not only dismissed Nagarajan’s appeal but also initiated its own revision proceedings—without any prompting from the prosecution—and elevated the charges. The court re-convicted him under Section 306 IPC, sentencing him to five years of rigorous imprisonment plus a fine.

The Legal Question Before the Supreme Court

The apex court was presented with a fundamental question: can a High Court, while hearing an appeal filed solely by the accused, exercise suo motu revisional power under Section 401 CrPC (now Section 442 BNSS) to not only convert a verdict of acquittal into one of conviction but also to impose a harsher penalty?

The Supreme Court's Verdict and Reasoning

A Constitution bench consisting of Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma delivered the ruling. The Court unequivocally held that it is impermissible for the High Court to act as a revisional tribunal in this manner when exercising appellate jurisdiction in an appeal by the accused.

The judgment emphasized the sacred principle that no appellant—particularly an accused—should be placed in a worse position as a result of exercising their statutory and constitutional appeal rights. The Supreme Court explained that an appeal is meant to afford relief or maintain the status quo at worst, not to inflict increased punishment.

Key Legal Provisions Highlighted:

1. Section 401(4) CrPC: This provision bars a High Court from entertaining suo motu revision if the State, complainant, or victim—who have the legal right to appeal—choose not to do so (scobserver.in).

2. Section 386(b)(iii) CrPC: While a High Court retains appellate powers to modify or affirm convictions and change sentencing, it explicitly prohibits increasing punishment in appeals filed by the accused.

   
   

The judgment underlined that in an appeal lodged by the accused challenging both conviction and sentence, the appellate authority may:

• Acquit the accused,

• Order a retrial,

• Reduce the sentence, or

• Uphold both conviction and sentence,

but cannot enhance the sentence, even if no objection is raised by the prosecution or other aggrieved parties.

Fairness and "No Worse-Off" Doctrine

The Court reiterated that the right to appeal is both statutory and constitutional, ensuring fairness and procedural justice. Enhancing a sentence in such appeals would run contrary to fundamental norms and deter the accused from exercising their right.

Referring to earlier precedents like Sachin v. State of Maharashtra (2025), the Court stressed that in matters of enhanced sentencing, the convicted person must have a chance to contest the change. Such enhancement is only permissible in appeals initiated by the prosecution or victim.

The Court also echoed the reasoning from the Bombay High Court in Jyoti Plastic Works Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India (2020), noting that:

“No appellant by filing an appeal can be worse‑off than what he was.”

Scope of High Court’s Revisional Jurisdiction

Invoking Section 401 CrPC, the Court clarified the boundaries of revisional and appellate functions:

• Appellate jurisdiction allows a court to re-examine evidence and law in appeals.

• Revisional powers enable supervisory scrutiny but cannot be used to magnify convictions or impose harsher sentences, especially in appeals by the accused.

Even if the High Court offered Nagarajan an opportunity to argue before raising the Section 306 charge, that procedural fairness did not legitimize its use of Suo motu revisional powers to augment punishment.

Final Order and Implications

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order convicting Nagarajan under Section 306, reinstating his acquittal on that charge. The convictions and three-year sentence under Sections 354 and 448 IPC, as originally imposed by the trial court, were affirmed.

In this ruling, Nagarajan was vindicated for Sections 354 and 448, while the additional conviction for abetment of suicide was struck down. His sentence was thus capped at the trial court’s original decision.

Broader Legal Significance

This ruling consolidates several critical tenets of criminal appeal jurisprudence in India:

• Protection of accused’s rights: It ensures that individuals are not penalized more severely for exercising their right to appeal.

• Clarification of revisional versus appellate powers: The judgment firmly separates a High Court’s supervisory capacity from its power to alter substantive outcomes.

• Procedural due process: Affirming that any change in conviction or sentence—especially harsher outcomes—requires a formal challenge and a fair chance for response.

• Judicial restraint: Emphasizing that courts should not expand their authority beyond statutory limitations, preserving the integrity of criminal jurisprudence.

Conclusion

In Nagarajan v. State of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court has once again underscored the sacrosanct principle that an appellant must not be placed at a disadvantage for exercising the right to challenge a conviction. By curbing the misuse of suo motu revisional powers and reinforcing procedural fairness, the judgment fortifies the core of criminal appellate jurisprudence in India. Justice BV Nagarathna aptly encapsulated the ethos: the law must never leave an accused worse off for seeking its shelter.