Supreme Court: In Appeal Against Conviction, High Court Cannot Suo Motu Enhance Sentence Of Convict
The Supreme Court clarified that the punishment an Appellate Court imposes for an alleged offence cannot be greater than the punishment the Court whose Order is being appealed could have imposed for that offence.
Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that in an Appeal filed by the accused, the High Court cannot suo motu exercise its revisional jurisdiction and enhance the sentence against the accused while maintaining the conviction.
The Court set aside a man's revised sentencing to life imprisonment in a POCSO case by the Bombay High Court and ordered his release by restoring the original sentence invoking Article 142 of the Constitution, pointing out his over-eleven-year incarceration, which exceeded the initial sentence imposed. The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court had previously upheld the conviction of the Appellant for offences under Sections 3(a) and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and Section 376 of the IPC.
A Bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma held that “the appellate court shall not inflict greater punishment for the offence which in its opinion the accused has committed, than might have been inflicted for that offence by the court passing the order of sentence under appeal. Therefore, even in an appeal for enhancement of sentence, unless the conditions prescribed in the form of provisos are complied with by the appellate court, there cannot be an enhancement of sentence. Obviously in such an appeal for enhancement of sentence, the convict or the accused is the respondent and therefore there cannot be enhancement of sentence unless the accused or convict has been heard.”
AOR Sangeeta Kumar appeared for the Appellant, while Advocate Shrirang B. Varma represented the Respondent.
Brief Facts
The Prosecution alleged that the complainant had reported that the accused had taken his four-year-old daughter to his house, removed her clothes, and committed rape opon her in 2013.
During the trial, the Special Court held that the Prosecution had proved that the accused committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim. Given this finding and the fact that the victim was a child below 12 years, the High Court pointed out that the accused should have been charged and punished under Section 5(m) and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, which deals with aggravated penetrative sexual assault.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court remarked, “In other words, when an accused is seeking setting-aside of a judgment of conviction and sentence, can the High Court, in the absence of there being any challenge to the same from any other quarter, suo motu exercise its revisional power and thereby condemn the accused by awarding an enhancement in his sentence. 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 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 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 Bench answered.
The Court pointed out, “However, under the scheme of Section 386 vis-à-vis in an appeal for enhancement of sentence there can also be an acquittal of the accused as per sub-clause (i) of clause (c) of Section 386. But, on the other hand, in an appeal from a conviction, it has been expressly stated that there cannot be enhancement of the sentence.”
The Bench further explained, “Therefore, while in an appeal for enhancement of sentence filed by the State, the accused can make out a case for acquittal or discharge or retrial, 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.”
The Court stated, “The trial courts should also be very careful while passing an order of sentence inasmuch as the sentence imposed must be concomitant with the charge(s) framed and the findings arrived at while arriving at a judgment of conviction. If the charges are proved beyond reasonable doubt against an accused then, the sentence following a finding and judgment of conviction must be appropriate to the nature of the charges which are proved by the prosecution.”
Consequently, the Court ordered, “Consequently, the Criminal Appeal No.30/2015 pending on the file of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay Nagpur Bench, Nagpur is rendered infructuous and therefore, the same stands disposed of…Resultantly, the respondent-State and Superintendent, Nagpur Central Jail, Maharashtra are directed to release the appellant from the jail forthwith.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Sachin v. State Of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 716)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Sangeeta Kumar; Advocates Vithika Garg, Adv. Ms. Vidushi Garg, Adv. Mr. Hemant Kumar Tripathi
Respondent: AOR Aaditya Aniruddha Pande; Advocates Shrirang B. Varma and Siddharth Dharmadhikar