The Supreme Court of India has delivered a crucial judgment, emphasizing that a High Court, while hearing an appeal filed by an accused against conviction, cannot suo motu (on its own motion) enhance the sentence or convict the appellant on a charge for which they were acquitted, in the absence of an appeal or revision filed by the State, victim, or complainant. This ruling reiterates the principle of "no reformatio in peius," meaning an appellant should not be placed in a worse position as a result of filing an appeal.

The present appeal arose from a common order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras, which dismissed the appellant's criminal appeal against his conviction and, simultaneously, allowed a suo motu revision to convict him for abetment of suicide (Section 306 IPC), overturning his acquittal by the Trial Court.

Case Background:

The case dates back to 2003, when the appellant, a neighbor of the deceased Smt. Mariammal, allegedly entered her room, attempted to outrage her modesty, and fled after being confronted by her mother-in-law. The next morning, the deceased and her infant daughter were found dead, having committed suicide by consuming oleander seeds.

Following a complaint, an FIR was registered against the appellant under Section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide). The Trial Court, while convicting the appellant for trespass (Section 448 IPC) and outraging modesty (Section 354 IPC), acquitted him of the charge of abetment of suicide, reasoning that his actions did not instigate the deceased to commit suicide. The appellant was sentenced to three years and one month imprisonment for Section 354 and three months for Section 448.

High Court's Suo Motu Revision:

Aggrieved by his conviction under Sections 354 and 448 IPC, the appellant filed an appeal before the High Court. During the pendency of this appeal, the High Court, observing that the State had not appealed the acquittal under Section 306 IPC, suo motu initiated a criminal revision case to examine the propriety of the acquittal.

The High Court, in its impugned judgment, asserted its inherent revisional powers under Section 401 CrPC. It dismissed the appellant's appeal, allowed its suo motu revision, convicted the appellant under Sections 306 and 448 IPC, and significantly enhanced the sentence to five years rigorous imprisonment for Section 306.

Supreme Court's Analysis and Decision:

The Supreme Court critically examined the High Court's actions in light of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, particularly Sections 386 (Powers of the Appellate Court) and 401 (High Court's powers of revision).

Referencing its recent judgment in Sachin vs. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court reiterated that in an appeal against conviction filed by the accused, the appellate court cannot enhance the sentence. Section 386(b)(iii) expressly states that the appellate court can alter the nature or extent of the sentence "but not so as to enhance the same." The Court emphasized that an appeal is a valuable statutory and constitutional right for an accused, and they should not be placed in a worse position for exercising this right.

Furthermore, regarding the High Court's revisional powers, the Supreme Court highlighted Section 401(3) CrPC, which explicitly states that nothing in this section "shall be deemed to authorise a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction." The Court extended this principle to mean that the High Court cannot enhance the sentence imposed by a Trial Court on conviction in an appeal filed by the accused/convict, especially when no appeal for enhancement was filed by the State, victim, or complainant.

The Court stressed that the power to enhance a sentence can only be exercised by an appellate court in an appeal specifically filed for that purpose by the State, victim, or complainant, provided the accused has a proper opportunity to show cause against such enhancement.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court's exercise of suo motu revisional powers to convict the appellant under Section 306 IPC and enhance his sentence in an appeal filed by the accused himself was impermissible. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the appellant's conviction and enhanced sentence under Section 306 IPC. It affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the Sessions Court for offenses under Sections 354 and 448 IPC. The appellant has been directed to surrender to serve the remainder of the sentence imposed by the Trial Court.

Section 306., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 354., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 448., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Indian Penal Code, 1860  

Section 401., Code of Criminal Procedure - 1973  

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973