The Supreme Court of India recently emphasized that an appellate court cannot enhance the sentence of a convict in an appeal filed by the convict unless a separate appeal is filed by the state, victim, or complainant. This decision aligns with the principles of fairness and the statutory framework outlined in Section 386(b)(iii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which restricts sentence enhancement in such scenarios.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Orders Release on Bail for Illegal Foreign Migrants Detained in West Bengal After
The Supreme Court clarified that an appellate court lacks the authority to increase the sentence in an appeal initiated by the accused. This decision arose from a case where the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court enhanced the convict's sentence while deciding an appeal filed by the convict himself.
The bench, comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and SC Sharma, stated:
“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 at the instance of the convict, 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.”
Case Background
- The case involved an appeal filed by a convict challenging his conviction for penetrative sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
- The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, while hearing this appeal, invoked its revisional powers and remanded the case to the trial court for reconsideration of sentence enhancement.
- The Supreme Court found this approach erroneous, as the High Court misused its revisional authority under Section 401 CrPC by acting on an appeal filed by the accused.
The Supreme Court emphasized that while High Courts possess suo motu revisional powers under Section 401 CrPC to enhance sentences in appropriate cases, this power cannot be exercised in an appeal filed by the accused. The Court highlighted the importance of ensuring that the accused does not face a worse situation than before when appealing a conviction.
Read Also:-Recusal of Judges Is Their Discretion, Guidelines Under Article 142 Not Feasible: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court explained that sentence enhancement can only be considered if a separate appeal is filed by the state, the victim, or the complainant. The Court stated:
“For exercise of powers of the appellate court for enhancement of sentence in an appeal filed either by the State, the complainant, or the victim, the CrPC provides that the appellate court can reverse the finding and sentence, and acquit or discharge the accused, or order retrial. However, it cannot enhance the sentence unless a separate appeal for such enhancement has been filed.”
After evaluating the facts, the Supreme Court held that the High Court was incorrect in remanding the case for sentence enhancement in an appeal filed by the convict. Consequently, the Supreme Court:
- Set aside the High Court’s direction to enhance the sentence.
- Upheld the conviction of the appellant.
- Reduced the sentence to the original seven years of imprisonment.
- Ordered the release of the appellant-accused, who had already served more than seven years.
Case Title: SACHIN VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Appearance:
For Petitioner(s) Ms. Sangeeta Kumar, AOR Mrs. Vithika Garg, Adv. Ms. Vidushi Garg, Adv. Mr. Hemant Kumar Tripathi, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR
