Suo Motu Raising Sentence To Statutory Minimum Is Correction of Error, Not Enhancement: Supreme Court Clarifies Section 386(b) CrPC Prohibition
The Court held that the bar against enhancement in accused's appeal assumes sentence was lawfully imposed while upholding conviction in suo motu revision under Section 401 CrPC for gang rape of a 52-year-old woman.
The Supreme Court has held that an accused has no right to insist upon the continuance of an illegal sentence, and that where a trial court imposes a sentence below the statutory minimum, the appellate court's act of substituting such sentence with the prescribed minimum does not amount to "enhancement" within the meaning of Section 386(b)(iii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The Court further held that such substitution is a suo motu correction of an error apparent on the face of the record undertaken to restore legality to the sentencing process, and the source of such action lies not in the appellate power to enhance but in the court's obligation acting ex debito justitiae to correct a patent illegality.
The Court additionally held that the embargo against enhancement of sentence in an appeal preferred by the accused under Section 386(b) CrPC assumes that the sentence sought to be protected was one lawfully imposed.
Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed, “…The accused has a right to challenge his conviction, but he has no right to insist upon the continuance of an illegal sentence. Thus, the appellate court, by raising the sentence to the statutory minimum, is not making the sentence harsher by choice but is merely giving effect to what the law compulsorily required from the outset”.
“…The prohibition under Section 386(b) cannot be understood as conferring upon an accused a right to insist upon the continuance of a sentence which the law forbids. The substitution of the sentence of twelve years with the mandatory minimum of twenty years by the High Court, therefore, is not an enhancement of punishment in the true sense, but a suo motu correction of an error apparent on the face of the record, undertaken to give effect to the law as it is and to restore legality to the sentencing process”, the Bench further noted.
Advocate Manika Tripathy appeared for the appellants and Sameer Abhyankar, AOR appeared for the respondent.
The Sessions Court had convicted the appellants under Section 376D IPC for gang rape of a 52-year-old woman and sentenced them to twelve years rigorous imprisonment, when the statutory minimum under Section 376D is twenty years.
In appeals filed by the accused before the Sikkim High Court, the High Court dismissed the appeals on merits but exercised suo motu revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 CrPC and enhanced the sentence to twenty years. The appellants contended before the Supreme Court that enhancement in their own appeals violated the bar under Section 386(b)(iii) CrPC and relied on the Court's judgment in Sachin v. State of Maharashtra, (2025) 9 SCC 507.
The Court distinguished Sachin, holding that that judgment concerned a lawfully imposed sentence whereas the present case involved a sentence imposed in direct contravention of the statutory mandate.
Further held that to permit an illegal sentence to be perpetuated merely because the accused and not the State challenged the conviction would elevate a procedural limitation over substantive legality and permit the appellate process to become an instrument for preserving an illegality, a consequence that can never be sanctioned.
“That being so, the High Court, by substituting the sentence awarded by the trial court with the minimum punishment prescribed by statute, did not exercise a power of enhancement under Section 386(b). It did not impose a harsher punishment in the exercise of appellate discretion. All it did was to discharge its duty to bring the sentence into conformity with the command of the statute. The source of such action lies not in the power to enhance, but in the obligation of the court, acting ex debito justitiae, to correct a patent illegality and ensure that the judgment affirmed by the judicial process is one which the law authorizes”, Bench noted.
The appeals were accordingly dismissed.
Cause Title: Karan Chettri and Another v. State of Sikkim (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 659)
Appearances:
Appellants: Manika Tripathy, Advocates.
Respondent: Sameer Abhyankar, AOR, Aryan Srivastava, Krishna Rastogi, Nalin Talwar, Advocates.