Supreme Court: Appellate court can not enhance sentence in appeal filed by accused against conviction in absence of counter appeal by complainant or state

 

Chambers of Ishaan Garg

Ch. No. 217, Western Wing, District & Sessions Court, Tis Hazari, New Delhi, Delhi 110054

+91 8851742417, +91 8800386163

In this regard, it must be noted that for exercise of powers of the appellate court for enhancement of sentence in an appeal filed either by the State or the complainant or the victim, the Code of Criminal Procedure 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. It is further provided 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, in an appeal for enhancement of sentence filed by the State etc., unless the conditions prescribed in the form of provisos to Section 386 of Code of Criminal Procedure 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. However, under the scheme of Section 386 of Code of Criminal Procedure vis-a-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 of Code of Criminal Procedure. But, on the other hand, in an appeal from a conviction, it has been expressly stated that there cannot be enhancement of the sentence. 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 in the absence of filing any appeal or revision. The above distinction can be explained by way of a latin maxim which has been discussed by Ujjal Bhuyan, J., while in Bombay High Court, in Jyoti Plastic Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors.,   MANU/MH/1857/2020, in the following words:

40. In this connection we may refer to the maxim reformatio in peius. It is a latin phrase meaning a change towards the worse i.e., a change for the worse. As a legal expression it means that a lower court judgment is amended by a higher court into a worse one for those appealing it. In many jurisdictions, this practice is forbidden ensuring that an Appellant cannot be placed in a worse position as a result of filing an appeal. When the above phrase is prefixed by the words 'no' or 'prohibition', which would render the maxim as no reformatio in peius or prohibition of reformatio in peius, it would denote a principle of procedure as per which using a remedy available in law should not aggravate the situation of the person who avails the remedy. In other words, a person should not be placed in a worse position as a result of filing an appeal. No reformatio in peius or prohibition of reformatio in peius is a part of fair procedure and thus by extension can also be construed as part of natural justice. It is not only a procedural guarantee but is also a principle of equity.

14. 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.{Para 13}

Ratio Decidendi:

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.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 2892-2893 of 2025.

Decided On: 04.06.2025

Nagarajan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.V. Nagarathna and S.C. Sharma, JJ.

Author: B.V. Nagarathna, J.

Citation: 2025 INSC 802,MANU/SC/0808/2025.

1. Leave granted