The Supreme Court of India.
Credit: PTI File Photo
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has said the High Court cannot exercise suo motu revision either to enhance the sentence or to convict the appellant on any other charge, in an appeal filed by him and in the absence of any plea filed by the victim, complainant or the State.
A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma said it is the duty of the appellate court to consider the appeal from the perspective of the accused-appellant therein to see if he has a good case on merits, and to set aside the judgment of the trial court and acquit the accused, or to remand the matter for a re-trial in accordance with law, or to reduce the sentence while maintaining the conviction or, in the alternative, to dismiss the appeal.
"The appellate court in an appeal filed by the accused cannot while maintaining the conviction enhance the sentence. While exercising its appellate jurisdiction, 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 accused," the bench said.
The court pointed out, the rationale of it can be explained in simple language by stating that no appellant by filing an appeal can be worse-off than what he was.
Under Section 368 CrPC related to the power of the appellate court, the bench said, "A right of appeal is an invaluable right, particularly for an accused who cannot be condemned eternally by a trial judge, without having a right to seek a re-look of the trial court’s judgment by a superior or appellate court."
The right to prefer an appeal is not only a statutory right but also a constitutional right in the case of an accused, it said.
"An accused has a right to not only challenge a judgment on its merits, namely, with respect to the conviction and sentence being imposed on him, but also on the procedural aspects of the trial," the bench said.
The court said an accused can question procedural flaws, impropriety and lapses that may have been committed by the trial court in arriving at the judgment of conviction and imposition of sentence in an appeal filed against the same.
The court emphasised, if the State, complainant or the victim who have the right to file an appeal do not opt to do so, then the High Court cannot entertain a revision at its behest. Also, if an appeal lies under the CrPC but an application for revision has been made to the High Court by any person under an erroneous belief, then the High Court can treat the application for revision as petition of appeal and deal with the same accordingly.
"Under Section 401 of CrPC, the High Court is not authorised to convert the findings of acquittal into one of conviction by exercise of revisional jurisdiction. This salutary principle can be extended to also mean that the High Court cannot enhance the sentence imposed by a trial court on conviction in an appeal filed by the accused/convict," the bench said.
The court set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Nagarajan under Section 306 of IPC for abetment to suicide and confirmed the judgment of the Sessions Court with regard the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 448 IPC.
As per the facts of the matter, the accused entered the house of the woman on the night of July 11, 2003, attempted to outrage her modesty. The mother-in-law of the deceased scolded the appellant- neighbour who then fled from the premises. The woman along with her infant daughter ended her life the next day.
The trial court acquitted the appellant of the charge of abetment to suicide but sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three years with Rs 25,000 fine. The High Court, on his appeal, exercised suo motu revision jurisdiction and convicted him of the offence under Section 306 IPC and enhanced his sentence to five years of jail.
The HC said the appellant has played an active role in tarnishing the self-esteem of the deceased by outraging her modesty and thereby instigated her to commit suicide.