The appellate jurisdiction of High Courts in criminal matters under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (previously, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) is a crucial safeguard for the accused. It provides an opportunity to seek rectification of judicial errors, challenge wrongful convictions, and contest disproportionate sentencing. However, a recurring question in criminal jurisprudence is whether the High Court, in an appeal filed only by the accused, can enhance the sentence or convict the accused for additional charges not appealed by the State or complainant. The Supreme Court’s judgment in Nagarajan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2025 INSC 802) answers this question with clarity and sets the critical precedent.
This article analyses the Supreme Court’s decision and its implications on the appellate and revisional jurisdiction of High Courts.
Background of the Case
Facts
The appellant, Nagarajan, was a neighbour of the deceased, Smt. Mariammal. On the night of 11 July 2003, Nagarajan trespassed into her home and attempted to outrage her modesty. The incident was interrupted by the deceased’s mother-in-law, after which the accused fled. Tragically, the next morning, Mariammal poisoned herself and her infant daughter with oleander seeds. Both died.
An FIR was registered under Section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide) [currently, Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)], and after investigation, the case was tried in the Fast Track Mahila Court, Dindigul. The Trial Court convicted the accused under Sections 354 and 448 IPC (assault to outrage modesty and house trespass) (Sections 74 and 329 BNS) but acquitted him of Section 306 IPC.
Appeal and Suo Motu Revision by High Court
Nagarajan appealed against his conviction. During the hearing, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, observing the seriousness of the incident, initiated suo motu criminal revision proceedings under Section 401 CrPC (Section 442 BNSS). The High Court subsequently convicted Nagarajan under Section 306 IPC and enhanced his sentence from simple imprisonment of three years to five years’ rigorous imprisonment.
This led to the appeal before the Supreme Court.
Issue
- Can a High Court, in an appeal filed solely by the accused, enhance the sentence or convict the appellant under an additional charge, in the absence of any appeal or revision by the State, victim, or complainant?
Legal Framework
Section 386(b) CrPC (Section 427 BNSS) – Powers of Appellate Court
Section 386(b) of CrPC empowers appellate courts to:
- Reverse the conviction and acquit or discharge the accused;
- Alter the finding or the nature/extent of the sentence;
- But not so as to enhance the same in an appeal filed by the accused.
Section 401 CrPC (Section 442 BNSS) – Revisional Powers of High Court
Section 401 allows the High Court to exercise any powers of an appellate court in revision. However:
- Sub-section (2) bars prejudicing the accused without a hearing;
- Sub-section (3) prohibits converting acquittal into conviction;
- Sub-section (4) bars revision if an appeal was available but not filed by the concerned party.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Court emphasised that:
1) Right to Appeal is a Statutory and Constitutional Safeguard
An appeal is not merely a procedural right but a safeguard against judicial error. It must not result in penalising the appellant further.
2) Appellate Court Cannot Enhance Sentence in Appeal by Accused Alone
The expression “but not so as to enhance the same” in Section 386(b)(iii) CrPC is unequivocal. In an appeal by the accused, the court may reduce but not enhance the sentence.
3) No Reformatio in Peius
The Court cited the doctrine of no reformatio in peius—a person appealing should not be put in a worse position than before the appeal. This is a procedural safeguard rooted in fairness and natural justice.
4) Improper Use of Revisional Jurisdiction
The High Court’s act of initiating suo motu revision under Section 401 CrPC while hearing the appeal of the accused was held impermissible. Section 401(3) explicitly bars converting acquittal into conviction. Moreover, if the State or the victim chose not to appeal, the High Court could not act suo motu.
5) Reference to Precedent: Sachin v. State of Maharashtra
Relying on Sachin (Criminal Appeals No. 2073–2075/2025), the Court reiterated that appellate courts cannot enhance punishment when the appeal is by the accused, as it violates statutory and procedural protections.
Key Observations by the Supreme Court
- The appellate court must consider the appeal from the appellant-accused’s point of view.
- Even with a hearing, the High Court cannot exercise suo motu revisional powers to enhance a sentence or convict under additional charges.
- If the State, complainant, or victim did not file an appeal or revision, the High Court cannot assume that role.
- Section 401 must be read with Section 386. The structure of CrPC discourages revisionary condemnation in an accused’s appeal.
Highlights of the Judgment
The key observations outlined below were made by Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma in the course of their judgment.
We also observe that the Trial Court should also be very careful while passing an order of sentence inasmuch as the sentence imposed must be concomitant with the charge(s) framed and the findings arrived at while arriving at a judgment of conviction. If the charges are proved beyond reasonable doubt against an accused, then the sentence following a finding and judgment of conviction must be appropriate to the nature of the charge(s) which are proved by the prosecution.
We are of the view 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.
Implications of the Ruling
For Judiciary
- Prevents judicial overreach and misuse of appellate or revisional jurisdiction.
- Reaffirms the principle that High Courts must act within statutory confines.
- Restricts power to interfere in cases where the State has not exercised its right to appeal.
For Accused
- Strengthens procedural protection against harsher punishment when exercising the right to appeal.
- Ensures that filing an appeal will not make the appellant worse off—a fear that may otherwise discourage appeals.
For State and Prosecutors
- Reinforces the obligation on the State to file appeals if they wish to challenge acquittals or seek enhanced punishment.
- Failure to do so removes the scope for such enhancements at the High Court level.
Conclusion
In Nagarajan v. State of Tamil Nadu(2025), the Supreme Court decisively answered a critical question in criminal appellate jurisprudence—a High Court cannot enhance the sentence or convert an acquittal into a conviction in an appeal filed solely by the accused.
The verdict highlights the importance of fair procedure, the sanctity of the right to appeal, and the doctrine of no reformatio in peius. By drawing a firm boundary around the exercise of revisional powers and upholding the rights of the appellant-accused, the Court has reinforced constitutional safeguards and judicial discipline.