Supreme Court Limits High Court's Suo Motu Revisional Powers in Accused Appeals.


[ Court Doc ]   Criminal Appeals & Suspension of Sentence >> Criminal Law  

In a significant ruling of Nagarajan v/s State of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court of India has clarified the limitations of a High Court's suo motu revisional powers, particularly when an appeal against conviction has been filed solely by the accused. The apex court held that in such cases, the High Court cannot enhance the sentence or convict the appellant on charges for which they were acquitted by the trial court.

The case involved an appellant (accused) who was the neighbor of the deceased, Smt. Mariammal. The incident occurred on the night of July 11, 2003, when the appellant allegedly entered the deceased's room, hugged her, and attempted to outrage her modesty. Following an intervention by the deceased's mother-in-law, the appellant fled. The next day, the deceased tragically committed suicide by consuming oleander seeds, also administering poison to her infant daughter, who later died.

 
 

Initially, an FIR was registered against the appellant under Section 306 (abetment of suicide) of the IPC. The Trial Court, however, acquitted the appellant of the Section 306 charge, finding that his actions did not constitute abetment. Instead, the Trial Court convicted him under Sections 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty) and 448 (house-trespass) of the IPC, sentencing him to simple imprisonment for three years and one month for Section 354, and three months for Section 448.

Aggrieved by this conviction, the appellant filed a criminal appeal before the High Court. While admitting the appeal, the High Court, on a prima facie appraisal, suo motu initiated a criminal revision case to examine the propriety of the appellant's acquittal under Section 306 IPC, noting that the State had not appealed this acquittal.

The High Court, in its common impugned judgment dated November 29, 2021, dismissed the appellant's appeal and, exercising its suo motu revisional powers, convicted him under both Sections 306 and 448 IPC. For Section 306, it sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for five years, significantly enhancing the overall punishment. The High Court reasoned that the appellant had "played an active role in tarnishing the self-esteem of the deceased by outraging her modesty and thereby instigated her to commit suicide."

Supreme Court's Analysis: "No Reformation in Peius"

The Supreme Court, referring to its recent judgment in Sachin vs. State of Maharashtra, underscored the principle of "no reformatio in peius" (no change for the worse). This legal maxim dictates that a person appealing a lower court's judgment should not be placed in a worse position as a result of filing their appeal.

The Court meticulously analyzed Section 386 (Powers of the Appellate Court) and Section 401 (High Court's powers of revision) of the CrPC:

Section 386 CrPC: This section outlines the powers of an appellate court. Crucially, sub-clause (iii) of clause (b) of Section 386 states that in an appeal from a conviction, the appellate court can "alter the nature or the extent, or the nature and extent, of the sentence, but not so as to enhance the same." The Supreme Court emphasized that this explicitly prohibits an appellate court from increasing the sentence in an appeal filed by the accused.
Section 401 CrPC (Revisional Powers): While a High Court has revisional powers, sub-section (3) of Section 401 expressly states that "Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise a High Court to convert a finding of acquittal into one conviction." Furthermore, sub-section (4) indicates that if an appeal lies and is not brought by the party who could have appealed (e.g., the State, victim, or complainant), then no revision proceeding can be entertained at their instance.

The Supreme Court concluded that in an appeal filed by the accused challenging their conviction and sentence, and in the absence of any appeal or revision filed by the State, victim, or complainant seeking enhancement of sentence or conviction on an acquitted charge, the High Court cannot suo motu exercise its revisional powers to enhance the sentence or convict the appellant on any other charge. To do so would violate the principle that an appellant should not be worse off for having filed an appeal.

Outcome of the Appeal:

Applying these principles to the present case, the Supreme Court found that the High Court had improperly exercised its suo motu revisional powers. The appellant had appealed against his conviction under Sections 354 and 448 IPC, not against his acquittal under Section 306 IPC. Neither the State nor the victim had sought a conviction or enhanced sentence under Section 306 before the High Court.

Therefore, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 306 of the IPC. It confirmed the judgment of the Sessions Court (Trial Court) as affirmed by the High Court regarding the convictions under Sections 354 and 448 IPC. The appellant has been directed to undergo the sentence and pay the fine as originally imposed by the Sessions Court.

The appellant, if he has not yet completed the sentence imposed by the Trial Court, is directed to surrender before the jurisdictional Chief Judicial Magistrate or concerned Police Station to suffer the remainder of the sentence.


Section 386., Code of Criminal Procedure - 1973  

Section 401., Code of Criminal Procedure - 1973  

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  

Section 306., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 354., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 448., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Indian Penal Code, 1860