High Court Cannot Exercise Suo Motu Revision Power To Enhance Sentence In Convict's Appeal : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that a High Court cannot suo motu exercise its revisional powers to enhance the sentence while considering an appeal filed by a convict/accused against conviction.

The Court stated that the High Court cannot invoke its revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) when the party who could have filed the revision petition, such as the State or the complainant, has chosen not to do so.

A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma was considering an appeal against a judgment of the Madras High Court, which suo motu used its revisional powers to sentence and convict the appellant for the offence under Section 306 (abetment of suicide) of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court had acquitted the appellant of the offence under Section 306 IPC but convicted him under Sections 354 & 448 IPC and sentenced him to three years imprisonment. He filed an appeal in the High Court against conviction. The High Court then registered a suo motu revision petition and considered it along with the convict's appeal. Asserting that it has inherent suo motu revision powers, the High Court convicted the appellant under S.306 IPC also and sentenced him to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment along with fine.

The Supreme Court disapproved of the course adopted by the High Court, observing that "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," observed the judgment authored by Justice Nagarathna.

The Court referred to Sub-section (4) of Section 401 of CrPC, which states that where under the CrPC an appeal could have been filed and has not been filed, then no proceeding by way of revision could be entertained at the instance of the party who could have appealed.  From this, the Supreme Court deduced that if the "State, complainant or the victim who have the right to file an appeal do not opt to do so, then the High Court cannot entertain a revision at its behest."

The Court added :

"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. This salutary principle can be extended to also mean that the High Court cannot enhance the sentence imposed by a Trial Court on conviction in an appeal filed by the accused/convict. Thus, in sum and substance, it can be observed that in an appeal filed by the accused seeking setting aside of the conviction of sentence, the High Court cannot exercise its revisional powers and while affirming the conviction direct for enhancement of sentence, when actually appeal could have been filed by the State, complainant or the victim and has not been filed. Therefore, where an appeal has been filed by the accused challenging the conviction and the sentence, the revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised by the High Court so as to remand the matter to the Trial Court for the purpose of enhancement of the sentence."

The Court stated that even if an opportunity of hearing is given to the convict, the High Court cannot enhance the sentence by exercising suo motu revision power in appeal against conviction.

"Even if an opportunity of hearing is given to such an accused/convict, we do not think that the High Court can exercise its revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 of CrPC while exercising its appellate jurisdiction in an appeal filed by the accused/convict in the High Court. All that the High Court can do is to set-aside the judgment of conviction and sentence and acquit the accused, or while doing so, order for a retrial, or in the alternative, while maintaining the conviction, reduce the sentence. In other words, 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."

The Court affirmed that 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. Reference was made to the recent judgment in Sachin v State of Maharashtra 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 592 which laid down the said dictum.

Reference was also made to the Bombay High Court's  judgment in Jyoti Plastic Works Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and Ors. 2020 OnLine Bom 2276 where Justice Ujjal Bhuyan explained that in the case of an appeal from conviction, the respondent in such an appeal, namely the State or the victim or the complainant, cannot seek enhancement of the sentence than what has been awarded by the Trial Court in the absence of filing any appeal or revision.

"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," the Court observed.

The Court set aside the High Court's judgment to the extent it convicted and sentenced the appellant under S.306 IPC. However, the conviction and sentence under S.358 and 448 IPC, as awarded by the trial court, was affirmed.

Case : Nagarajan v State of Tamil Nadu

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 672

Click here to read the judgment

Appearances:

For petitioner - Mr. M.P. Srivignesh, Adv. Mr. Lakshman Raja T., Adv. Mr. Sharavena Raghul ASR, Adv. Mr. Mithun Kumaar N, Adv. Mr. Gokul Athithya R P, Adv. Mr. Manu Srinath, AOR

For respondent - Mr. V.Krishnamurthy, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Adv. Ms. Azka Sheikh Kalia, Adv. Ms. Jahnavi Taneja, Adv. Mr. Veshal Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Danish Saifi, Adv.