While setting aside the conviction of an accused under Section 306 of the IPC and confirming the judgment of the Sessions Court, the Supreme Court has held that 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 Appeal before the Apex Court was filed against the impugned order ed by the Madras High Court dismissing the Criminal Appeal preferred by the appellant and convicting him under Sections 306 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The Division Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma held, “We are of the view that in 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.”

Advocate M.P.Srivignesh represented the Appellant while Senior A.A.G. V.Krishnamurthy represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The appellant was the neighbor of the deceased woman. One night, the appellant entered the room of the deceased and, while hugging her, attempted to outrage her modesty. Upon hearing the disturbance, the mother-in-law of the deceased intervened and scolded the appellant, who then fled from the premises. The next day, the deceased committed suicide and also istered poison to her child. Based on the complaint, an FIR was ed under Section 306 of the IPC against the appellant.

The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 354 and 448 of the IPC. Insofar as Section 306 of the IPC was concerned, the Trial Court observed that the actions of the appellant did not constitute abetment of suicide. In revision, the High Court dismissed the Criminal Appeal filed by the appellant. It allowed the suo motu Criminal Revision Petition, thereby convicting the appellant under Sections 306 and 448 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, explained 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 the accused.

“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 to remand the matter to the Trial Court for the purpose of enhancement of the sentence”, it stated while also adding, “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.”

As per the Bench, 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 in the absence of filing any appeal or revision.

Coming to the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the High Court, instead of considering the said appeal filed by the appellant on merits, sought to exercise suo motu revisional powers for convicting the appellant under Section 306 of IPC also and thereby sentencing the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000 and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The sentences were to run concurrently. Thus, a conviction awarded for offences under Sections 354 and 448 of the IPC had also resulted in a conviction under Section 306 of the IPC and an enhanced sentence, that too, in an appeal filed by none other than the appellant.

Thus, the Bench set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 306 of the IPC and confirmed the judgment of the Sessions Court as affirmed by the High Court qua the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 448 IPC. Allowing the appeals in part, the Bench ordered, “Consequently, the appellant is directed to undergo the sentence and to pay the fine as imposed by the Sessions Court.”

Cause Title: Nagarajan v. State of Tamil Nadu (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 802)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocates M. P. Srivignesh, Lakshman Raja. T, Sharavena Raghul Asr, Mithun Kumaar N, Manu Srinath

Respondent: Sr. A.A.G. V.Krishnamurthy, AOR Sabarish Subramanian, Advocates Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Azka Sheikh Kalia, Jahnavi Taneja, Veshal Tyagi, Danish Saifi

Click here to read/ Judgment



Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.