The Supreme Court has held that a High Court cannot exercise suo motu revisional jurisdiction to enhance the sentence or convict an accused on a new charge in an appeal filed solely by the accused. The Court set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 306 IPC imposed by the Madras High Court on the appellant in the case Nagarajan vs State of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Appeal Nos. 2892-2893 of 2025).
The judgment was delivered by a Bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma.
Background
The appellant Nagarajan, a neighbor of the deceased Mariammal, was accused of trespassing into her house on the night of July 11, 2003, and attempting to outrage her modesty. The next morning, Mariammal reportedly committed suicide by consuming poison and also administered the same to her infant daughter. While both were found by a passerby and taken to the hospital, they were declared dead.
An FIR under Section 306 IPC was registered based on a complaint by the village watchman. The case proceeded before the Mahila Court, Fast Track Court, Dindigul. On May 29, 2015, the Trial Court acquitted the appellant of the offence under Section 306 IPC but convicted him under Sections 354 and 448 IPC, sentencing him to simple imprisonment for three years and one month and a fine of ₹25,000.
The appellant challenged the conviction in the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. During the pendency of the appeal, the High Court initiated suo motu criminal revision (Crl. R.C. (MD) No. 248/2015) and, by judgment dated November 29, 2021, convicted the appellant under Section 306 IPC as well, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for five years.
Supreme Court Observations
The Supreme Court, while allowing the appeal in part, reiterated that a right of appeal is an “invaluable right” for the accused and cannot result in worsening his situation if exercised. Referring to its own precedent in Sachin vs State of Maharashtra, the Court observed:
“In an appeal filed by the appellant-accused against the judgment of the conviction and sentence, can the accused be left worse-off… by enhancing the sentence? … An appeal is not only a valuable statutory right but also a constitutional right in criminal cases.”
The Court analyzed Sections 386 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, and clarified that:
- Section 386(b)(iii) CrPC allows alteration of sentence in appeal but explicitly states “not so as to enhance the same”.
- Section 401(3) CrPC bars a High Court from converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction while exercising revisional jurisdiction.
The Bench further explained the principle of no reformatio in peius, stating:
“A person should not be placed in a worse position as a result of filing an appeal. No reformatio in peius… is a part of fair procedure and thus by extension can also be construed as part of natural justice.”
Decision
The Supreme Court concluded that:
“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.”
Accordingly, the conviction and sentence under Section 306 IPC imposed by the High Court was set aside. The conviction and sentence under Sections 354 and 448 IPC, as ordered by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court, were upheld.
The appellant was directed to surrender before the jurisdictional Chief Judicial Magistrate or the concerned police station to serve the remainder of the sentence. In case of failure, the police were instructed to ensure compliance.
Case Title: Nagarajan vs State of Tamil Nadu
Case Numbers: Criminal Appeal Nos. 2892-2893 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 621-622 of 2024)
