Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court recently held that, in an appeal against conviction, an Appellate Court cannot invoke its powers to enhance the sentence when neither the state, the victim, nor the complainant has filed an appeal or revision seeking such enhancement.

The Court said that an appellate court cannot enhance the sentence in an appeal filed by the convict, as it violates the principle of fairness and the statutory scheme under Section 386(b)(iii) Cr.P.C., which prohibits enhancement in such appeals. For enhancement, a separate appeal needs to be filed by the State/victim, the court clarified.

“In our considered view, the appellate court, in an appeal filed by the accused cannot, while maintaining the conviction, enhance the sentence. While exercising its appellate jurisdiction at the instance of the convict, 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.”, the bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and SC Sharma observed.

In this case, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, while deciding an appeal against conviction filed by the convict (for penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act and IPC), exercised its revisional powers and remanded the matter to the trial court for reconsideration of the sentence enhancement.

Finding the High Court's approach to be erroneous, the Court clarified that while the High Court has suo motu revisional powers under Section 401 Cr.P.C. to enhance sentences in appropriate cases, this power cannot be exercised in an appeal filed by the accused.

The Court noted that the High Court erred in remanding the case for enhancement of sentence when the accused was the appellant, as this left him worse off than before.

“In the above facts and circumstances, we find that the learned Single Judge of the High Court was not right in remanding the matter to the Special Court for enhancing the sentence to be imposed on the appellant-accused, that too, in an appeal filed by accused seeking setting aside of a judgment of conviction and sentence imposed on him. Consequently, the Special Court was not right in enhancing the sentence from rigorous imprisonment for seven years, which was earlier awarded, to life imprisonment by following the aforesaid direction.”, the court added.

In terms of the aforesaid, the Court allowed the appeal, upholding the conviction and reducing the sentence to the original seven years' imprisonment. Since the Appellant-accused had suffered a term excess to seven years imprisonment, the Court ordered his release.

Case Title: SACHIN VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 592

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Ms. Sangeeta Kumar, AOR Mrs. Vithika Garg, Adv. Ms. Vidushi Garg, Adv. Mr. Hemant Kumar Tripathi, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR