In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court clarified that a High Court has no power to enhance the sentence of a convict by exercising suo motu revision during the convict’s own appeal. The Court firmly held that such revisional powers cannot be invoked when the party eligible to file a revision—such as the State, the complainant, or the victim—has chosen not to do so.
Read also: Supreme Court issues notice to Haryana Govt on plea alleging sexual harassment and assault of woman
The case was heard by a bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma. The matter involved an appeal from a judgment of the Madras High Court. The appellant had been acquitted by the trial court of charges under Section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide), but was convicted under Sections 354 and 448 IPC and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment.
Upon appeal by the accused challenging his conviction, the High Court not only affirmed the conviction under Sections 354 and 448 IPC but also, on its own, exercised suo motu revisional power and convicted the appellant under Section 306 IPC, enhancing the sentence to five years of rigorous imprisonment.
“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,”
— Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held this approach to be impermissible under law. It emphasized that Section 401(4) of the CrPC (now Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) bars the High Court from acting on its own when the parties with the right to appeal or seek revision do not do so.
“Under Section 401 of CrPC, the High Court is not authorised to convert the findings of acquittal into one of conviction by exercise of revisional jurisdiction,”
— Supreme Court
The Court clarified that even if the accused is granted a hearing, the High Court cannot use its revisional powers to enhance the sentence. It stressed that this power is exclusively available in appeals filed by the State, victim, or complainant, where the accused has an opportunity to contest the proposed enhancement.
Read also: NHAI moves SC against Madras HC order that stayed toll collection on Madurai-Tuticorin highway
The bench referred to the ruling in Sachin v. State of Maharashtra 2025 affirming that the principle of fair process must be upheld. Additionally, reference was made to the Bombay High Court judgment in Jyoti Plastic Works Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India (2020), where it was clearly stated that no party should be made worse off for filing an appeal.
“The rationale… is that no appellant by filing an appeal can be worse-off than what he was. That is exactly what we are seeking to reiterate,”
— Supreme Court
Case : Nagarajan v State of Tamil Nadu
Appearances:
For petitioner - Mr. M.P. Srivignesh, Adv. Mr. Lakshman Raja T., Adv. Mr. Sharavena Raghul ASR, Adv. Mr. Mithun Kumaar N, Adv. Mr. Gokul Athithya R P, Adv. Mr. Manu Srinath, AOR
For respondent - Mr. V.Krishnamurthy, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Adv. Ms. Azka Sheikh Kalia, Adv. Ms. Jahnavi Taneja, Adv. Mr. Veshal Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Danish Saifi, Adv.
