The Supreme Court, in a judgment delivered by Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, ruled that in an appeal filed by a convict, the High Court cannot enhance the sentence without an appeal by the State, complainant, or victim. The Court emphasized that the accused cannot be made worse off by exercising his statutory and constitutional right to appeal. The judgment invalidated the High Court’s direction enhancing the sentence and ordered the immediate release of the appellant who had already served over eleven years.
Background
The appellant, Sachin, was convicted by the Special Court at Warora under Section 3(a) read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act and Section 376 IPC for the rape of a four-year-old girl. On 24 November 2014, he was sentenced to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment and fined ₹2,000. No appeal was filed by the State or victim.
However, in Criminal Appeal No. 30 of 2015, the appellant challenged his conviction and sentence before the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench). While affirming the conviction, the High Court invoked aggravated provisions — Sections 5(m) and 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 376(2)(i) IPC — and remanded the matter to the trial court for enhancement of sentence. As a result, the Special Court enhanced the sentence to life imprisonment.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Court criticized the High Court’s action, stating it was in breach of the procedural law and natural justice.
“In an appeal filed by the accused seeking setting aside of the conviction or sentence, the High Court cannot exercise its revisional powers to enhance the sentence.”
“No appellant by filing an appeal can be worse-off than what he was.” (Para 33)
On the scope of appellate powers under Section 386 CrPC:
“The appellate court… can, in an appeal from a conviction… alter the nature or extent of the sentence, but not so as to enhance the same.” (Para 23)
Regarding revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 CrPC:
“Even if an opportunity of hearing is given… the High Court cannot exercise its revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 CrPC while exercising its appellate jurisdiction in an appeal filed by the accused.” (Para 29.1)
The Court cited the constitutional dimension of the issue:
“The right to prefer an appeal is not only a statutory right but also a constitutional right in criminal cases.”
“The accused, by exercising his constitutional right to appeal, cannot be condemned with a harsher sentence than what was originally imposed.”
Decision and Directions
- The Court set aside the High Court’s orders dated 26.02.2016, 02.03.2016, and 08.03.2016.
- It quashed the Special Court’s order dated 28.04.2016 enhancing the sentence to life imprisonment.
- It restored the original sentence of seven years’ rigorous imprisonment passed by the Special Court on 24.11.2014.
- It ordered the immediate release of the appellant, who had already undergone eleven years and eight months of incarceration.
“We exercise our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India… the appellant is released from jail forthwith.”
Citation
Sachin vs State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal Nos. ___ of 2025 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 4795–4797 of 2025), judgment dated April 21, 2025.
