The Supreme Court of India, comprising a bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi, has held that an appellate court cannot enhance a convict’s sentence in an appeal filed by the accused when no appeal or revision seeking enhancement has been filed by the State, the victim, or the complainant. The apex court further clarified that under Section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), a sentence of life imprisonment cannot be directed to run consecutively with another life sentence or a fixed-term sentence. Setting aside the judgment of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, the Supreme Court restored the appellant’s sentence to life imprisonment and ordered that all imposed sentences shall run concurrently rather than consecutively.
Background of the Case
The case stems from a gruesome triple murder and robbery incident that took place on November 8, 2007. According to the prosecution, the first accused, Ambarasu—a former driver of Dr. A. Malik Mohammed—along with his friend Gopi @ Sahaya Puruna (the appellant), entered Dr. Mohammed’s residence in Kanyakumari District. The duo first killed the watchman, Gnanaprakasam, and then proceeded into the house where Ambarasu killed Dr. Mohammed.
Thereafter, both accused restrained Dr. Mohammed’s wife, Katheeja Bibi, threatened her, demanded money, and took her valuables. They abducted her in Dr. Mohammed’s Tata Indica car, pledged her gold jewelry for cash, took her to Ongoor village in Vilupuram District, and burnt her alive by pouring a mixture of petrol and diesel on her.
On November 12, 2007, the victim’s brother (PW1) discovered suspicious circumstances at the residence, leading police to find the bodies of Dr. Mohammed and Gnanaprakasam. An FIR was registered as Crime No. 784 of 2007 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) at Nesamony Nagar Police Station, Nagercoil, and both accused were arrested on November 19, 2007.
The Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari Division at Nagercoil, framed 12 charges against both accused under Sections 120-B, 449, 302 (3 counts), 201 (2 counts), 379, 364, 392 (2 counts), and 472 of the IPC. During trial proceedings, accused Ambarasu absconded, prompting the trial court to split up the case against him as S.C. No. 94/2009 and proceed against Gopi in S.C. No. 97/2008.
On October 1, 2009, the trial court convicted Gopi under Sections 120-B, 449, 302 (3 counts), 392, 201, and 364 of the IPC, while acquitting him of charges under Sections 379, 472, 201 (one count), and 392 (one count). He was sentenced to life imprisonment on multiple counts alongside fixed-term sentences, with fines totaling Rs. 63,000/-, and the trial court directed all sentences to run consecutively.
Gopi challenged his conviction and sentence before the Madras High Court in Criminal Appeal (MD) No. 411/2009. Meanwhile, Ambarasu was subsequently secured, tried in S.C. No. 94/2009, convicted, and awarded the death penalty on September 8, 2010. Ambarasu’s proceedings were submitted to the High Court under Section 366 CrPC for confirmation of the death sentence.
The High Court clubbed Gopi’s appeal with Ambarasu’s death reference and registered a suo moto revision under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC. On December 20, 2011, the High Court set aside Gopi’s conviction under Section 120-B IPC but affirmed his convictions under Sections 449, 302 (3 counts), 392, 201, and 364 IPC. However, exercising suo moto revisional jurisdiction, the High Court enhanced Gopi’s sentence from life imprisonment to imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life, while confirming that the sentences run consecutively. Ambarasu’s death sentence was reduced to imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life. Gopi then appealed to the Supreme Court, which issued notice limited to the question of sentence.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the High Court erred in enhancing the sentence under its revisional jurisdiction without any appeal for enhancement preferred by the State, the victim, or the complainant. It was contended that the High Court could not leave a convict worse off in his own appeal against conviction. Furthermore, relying on the Constitution Bench judgment in Muthuramalingam and Ors. v. State, Represented by Inspector of Police (2016), counsel submitted that both the trial court and the High Court erred in ordering the sentences to run consecutively, as a sentence of life imprisonment can only run concurrently with other fixed-term or life sentences.
Counsel for the State respondent contended that the decision of the High Court was in line with settled principles of law and did not warrant interference by the Supreme Court.
Court’s Analysis
Addressing the first issue regarding sentence enhancement, the Supreme Court observed that an appellate court cannot enhance the sentence of an accused in an appeal filed by the accused when no appeal or revision for enhancement has been submitted by the State or the victim.
Referring to its recent precedent in Nagarajan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2025) (which cited Sachin v. State of Maharashtra), the bench highlighted the principles governing appellate jurisdiction:
“A plain reading of this would imply that in an appeal against conviction which is obviously filed by the accused, the challenge could be two-fold: firstly, it could be against the conviction itself in which case there is a challenge to the sentence also; and secondly, the challenge could be only to the sentence while accepting the conviction.”
The Court further reiterated:
“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, 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.”
Applying this principle, the Supreme Court held that the High Court’s exercise of suo moto revisional power to enhance Gopi’s sentence from life imprisonment to imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life was impermissible and illegal.
Turning to the second issue regarding consecutive sentences, the apex court examined Section 31 of the CrPC and relied upon the Constitution Bench ruling in Muthuramalingam and Ors. v. State, Represented by Inspector of Police (2016), which had considered earlier rulings in O.M. Cherian and Duryodhan Rout. The Court quoted the observations in Muthuramalingam:
“Since sentence of imprisonment for life means jail till the end of normal life of the convict, the sentence of imprisonment of fixed term has to necessarily run concurrently with life imprisonment. In such case, it will be in order if the Sessions Judges exercise their discretion in issuing direction for concurrent running of sentences. Likewise if two life sentences are imposed on the convict, necessarily, the court has to direct those sentences to run concurrently.”
The Court noted that Gopi was awarded life imprisonment under five counts—under Section 449 IPC, thrice under Section 302 IPC for the three murders, and under Section 364 IPC—alongside fixed-term sentences under Sections 392 and 201 IPC. The Supreme Court concluded that directing such sentences to run consecutively violated the settled position of law.
Decision of the Court
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order enhancing the appellant’s sentence from life imprisonment to imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life. The apex court further modified the direction affirmed by the High Court regarding consecutive sentences, ordering that all sentences imposed on the appellant shall run concurrently.
Case Title: Gopi @ Sahaya Puruna v. The State, Rep. by the Inspector of Police
Case No.: Criminal Appeal Nos. 3884-3885 of 2026
Bench: Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi
Date: August 18, 2026
