Sachin vs State Of Maharashtra 2025 INSC 716 - Ss. 377,386,401 - Appeal against Conviction - Enhancement Of Sentence

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 386,401 [Section 427,442 BNSS] - No appellant by filing an appeal can be worse-off than what he was - The appellate court, in an appeal filed by the accused cannot, while maintaining the conviction, enhance the sentence - In an appeal filed by the accused seeking setting aside of the conviction of sentence, the High Court cannot exercise its revisional powers and while affirming the conviction, direct for enhancement of sentence where appeal could have been filed by the State, complainant or the victim and has not been filed- Where an appeal has been filed by the accused challenging the conviction and the sentence, the revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised by the High Court so as to remand the matter to the trial court for the purpose of enhancement of the sentence. (Para 27-28) The power to enhance the sentence can be exercised by the appellate court only in an appeal filed by the State, victim or complainant provided the accused has had an opportunity of showing cause against such enhancement. (Para 31)

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 377, 401 [Section 418,442 BNSS] -Even while exercising appellate powers under Section 377 CrPC, there cannot be exclusion of revisional jurisdiction of the High Court to act suo motu for enhancement of sentence in appropriate cases and what is an appropriate case has to be left to the discretion of the High Court. Further, the High Court can suo motu call for the record of proceedings of any inferior criminal court under its jurisdiction and exercise revisional powers. (Para 29)

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - The distinction between 'appellate jurisdiction' and 'revisional jurisdiction’ discussed - In law, ‘revision’ stands on a different footing from an ‘appeal’. In a revision, the revising authority is not bound to examine the facts for itself but is entitled to give its decision on points of law alone, whereas in an appeal, the whole case is before the appellate authority, which must enter into questions both of fact and law. Also in a revision, the person seeking revision has mere restricted rights than one who prefers an appeal. Whereas an appeal confers statutory vested right on the litigant which accrues the moment the proceedings in question are instituted, the right of revision is merely a discretionary power to be exercised by the revisional court according to the circumstances of the case or exigencies of the situation. A person cannot as a matter of right claim the proceedings to be revised. (Para 28.6)

Legal Maxims- Reformatio in peius - It is a latin phrase meaning a change towards the worse i.e., a change for the worse. As a legal expression it means that a lower court judgment is amended by a higher court into a worse one for those appealing it. In many jurisdictions, this practice is forbidden ensuring that an appellant cannot be placed in a worse position as a result of filing an appeal. When the above phrase is prefixed by the words ‘no’ or ‘prohibition’, which would render the maxim as no reformatio in peius or prohibition of reformatio in peius, it would denote a principle of procedure as per which using a remedy available in law should not aggravate the situation of the person who avails the remedy. In other words, a person should not be placed in a worse position as a result of filing an appeal. No reformatio in peius or prohibition of reformatio in peius is a part of fair procedure and thus by extension can also be construed as part of natural justice. It is not only a procedural guarantee but is also a principle of equity. (Para 32)

Supreme Court: In Appeal Against Conviction, High Court Cannot Suo Motu Enhance Sentence Of Convict

The Supreme Court clarified that the punishment an Appellate Court imposes for an alleged offence cannot be greater than the punishment the Court whose Order is being appealed could have imposed for…

VerdictumRiya Rathore