High courts can't suo motu enhance punishment in appeal: Supreme Court

Supreme Court noted that the sentences were ordered to run concurrently by the high court.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday held high courts cannot exercise suo motu revision powers either to enhance the sentence or to convict an accused on any other charge in the absence of appeal filed by the victim, complainant or the state.

A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma passed the verdict on an appeal filed by one Nagarajan, challenging an order of Madurai bench of the Madras High Court which convicted him for abetment of suicide of a woman and sentenced him to five-years rigorous imprisonment.

He was also convicted of charges of outraging the modesty and house trespass.

The top court noted that the trial court acquitted him of the charges of Section 306 of IPC for abetment of suicide and convicted him only for outraging the modesty of the woman and house trespass.

Nagarajan appealed in the high court, which upheld the trial court’s order of conviction but suo motu initiated proceedings for his conviction under Section 306 of the IPC and convicted him.

It came on record that no appeal was filed by the state, victim or complainant for enhancement of sentence or acquittal under section 306 of the IPC.

"An appeal filed by the accused/convict and in the absence of any appeal filed by the victim, complainant or the state, the high court cannot exercise suo motu revision either to enhance the sentence or to convict the appellant on any other charge," the bench said.

As a result, the bench set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 306 of IPC but confirmed his conviction for "outraging the modesty of woman" and "house trespass".

"The appellant is directed to undergo the sentence and to pay the fine as imposed by the sessions court,” it held.

The top court noted that the sentences were ordered to run concurrently by the high court.

"Thus, a conviction awarded for offences under Sections 354 and 448 of IPC has also resulted in a conviction under Section 306 of IPC and an enhanced sentence, that too, in an appeal filed by none other than the appellant," it said.

According to the bench "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." Justice Nagarathna, who authored the verdict, said for exercising powers of the appellate court for enhancement of sentence in an appeal filed either by the state or the complainant or the victim, CrPC provides that the appellate court can reverse the finding and sentence and acquit or discharge the accused, or order him to be re-tried by a court competent to try the offence, or alter the finding by maintaining the sentence, or with or without altering the finding, alter the nature or the extent, of the sentence so as to enhance or reduce the same.

"Thus, 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," the court held.

The bench said that the trial court should also be very careful while passing an order of sentence which must be "concomitant" with the charges framed and the findings arrived at while arriving at a judgment of conviction.

Nagarajan had challenged the November 29, 2021 order of the high court.

He was accused of outraging the modesty of his neighbour by trespassing her house on July 11, 2003.

The woman died by suicide along with her infant, the very next day.