Supreme Court Strikes Down Suo Motu Conviction In Appeal By Accused | Says High Courts Cannot Invoke Revisional Powers To Enhance Punishment
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma held that a High Court, while exercising appellate jurisdiction in an appeal filed solely by an accused, cannot invoke its suo motu revisional powers to convict the accused for additional offences or enhance the sentence. The Court categorically set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) that was imposed by the High Court suo motu, while confirming the conviction and sentence under Sections 354 and 448 IPC as awarded by the Trial Court. The Supreme Court directed the appellant to surrender for serving the remainder of the sentence originally imposed by the Trial Court, if not already served.
The appellant was the neighbour of the deceased, Smt. Mariammal. On the night of 11 July 2003, the appellant entered her room, hugged her, and attempted to outrage her modesty. The mother-in-law of the deceased intervened, upon which the appellant fled. On the following morning, 12 July 2003, the deceased and her infant daughter were reported missing. It was discovered that the deceased attempted to take her elder daughter from school but was not permitted due to the absence of the warden. Subsequently, she proceeded to a nearby field with her infant daughter and consumed oleander seeds. The deceased administered the same to her daughter. Both were found by a passerby and taken to the hospital, where they were declared dead.
A First Information Report (FIR No. 239/2003) was registered at Kannivadi Police Station under Section 306 IPC. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed under the same provision. The matter was committed to the Mahila Court, Fast Track Court, Dindigul as S.C. No. 54 of 2007. The Trial Court altered the charges to Sections 354 and 448 IPC and acquitted the appellant under Section 306 IPC, stating that his actions did not amount to instigation or abetment of suicide. However, he was convicted under Sections 354 and 448 IPC and sentenced to simple imprisonment of three years and one month and a fine of Rs. 25,000, with a further three-month simple imprisonment in default. Additionally, a sentence of simple imprisonment for three months was imposed under Section 448 IPC.
Aggrieved by the conviction under Sections 354 and 448 IPC, the appellant filed Criminal Appeal No. 137/2015 before the High Court. Upon prima facie review, the High Court expressed concern that the acquittal under Section 306 IPC may have required further scrutiny. Noting that the State had not filed an appeal, the High Court, by order dated 8 June 2015, directed the registration of a suo motu criminal revision case (Crl. R.C. No. 248/2015). The High Court appointed an Amicus Curiae to examine whether the acquittal under Section 306 IPC was sustainable.
In the common judgment dated 29 November 2021, the High Court dismissed the appellant’s appeal and allowed the suo motu revision. It convicted the appellant under Sections 306 and 448 IPC, sentencing him to five years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000, with a default sentence of three months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 306 IPC, and a further three-month simple imprisonment under Section 448 IPC. The High Court stated that the appellant had actively tarnished the self-esteem of the deceased and thereby instigated her to commit suicide.
The appellant approached the Supreme Court, which heard the matter in Criminal Appeal Nos. 2892-2893 of 2025. The Court examined the legal validity of the High Court’s exercise of suo motu revisional powers under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in an appeal filed solely by the accused.
The Supreme Court observed “The question for consideration in this case is, whether, in an appeal against conviction, the appellate court could have directed enhancement of the sentence in an appeal filed by the accused.”
The Court referred to clause (b) of Section 386 CrPC and noted, “The appellate court can... alter the nature or the extent, or the nature and extent, of the sentence but not so as to enhance the same.”
It further observed, “In an appeal filed by the appellant-accused against the judgment of the conviction and sentence, can the accused be left worse-off while the conviction is affirmed by the appellate court exercising appellate jurisdiction by enhancing the sentence? In such an event, the appellant-accused would be better off, if he either withdraws his appeal or, not to file an appeal at all.”
The Bench referred to its decision in Sachin vs. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal Nos. 2073-2075 of 2025 dated 21 April 2025, which examined the same legal question and held that in an appeal filed by the accused, the appellate court cannot enhance the sentence in the absence of an appeal by the State or complainant.
The Court further recorded, “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 relied on Section 401 CrPC and quoted, “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.”
The Court noted, “In an appeal filed only by the accused/convict, the High Court cannot suo motu exercise its revisional jurisdiction and enhance the sentence against the accused while maintaining the conviction.”
Quoting from Jyoti Plastic Works Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and Ors., the Court reiterated the principle of "no reformatio in peius", and stated, “Using a remedy available in law should not aggravate the situation of the person who avails the remedy.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court found fault with the High Court's action in enhancing the sentence and convicting the appellant under Section 306 IPC while hearing an appeal filed by the accused only.
The Supreme Court directed, “We set-aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 306 of IPC and confirm the judgment of the Sessions Court as affirmed by the High Court qua the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 448 IPC.”
The Court further stated, “Consequently, the appellant is directed to undergo the sentence and to pay the fine as imposed by the Sessions Court.”
Regarding the implementation of the sentence, the Court ordered, “In the event the accused has not yet completed the sentence imposed by the Trial Court, he is directed to surrender before the jurisdictional Chief Judicial Magistrate or before the concerned Police Station for being lodged in the jail to suffer the remainder of the sentence.”
The Bench added, “In case of failure on the part of the accused to surrender, appropriate action shall be taken up by the concerned Police Station to arrest the accused for being lodged in the jail.”
The appeals were allowed in part.
Case Title: Nagarajan vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 802
Case Number: Criminal Appeal Nos. 2892-2893 of 2025
Bench: Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
[Read/Download order]
