Appellate Court Cannot Enhance Sentence In Appeal Filed By Convict: SC

Striking a decisive blow against judicial overreach in criminal appeals, the Supreme Court has ruled that an appellate court cannot suo motu enhance a convict's sentence in an appeal filed solely by the accused, nor can life sentences be ordered to run consecutively.

A bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi delivered this critical judgment while hearing appeals against a Madras High Court decision that had enhanced a life convict's sentence using its revisional powers without any appeal for enhancement from the State or complainant.

Appellate Limits On Sentence Enhancement

The Supreme Court observed that exercising revisional power to enhance a sentence while deciding an appeal filed by an accused is legally impermissible. The Court emphasized that an accused challenging their conviction cannot be put in a more detrimental position merely for exercising their statutory and constitutional right to appeal.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "In the absence of an appeal preferred by the State or the victim or the Complainant seeking enhancement of the sentence, the appellate court cannot enhance the sentence of the convict on its own so as to leave the convict in a position worse off than he was prior to filing of the appeal." Relying on its precedent in Nagarajan vs. State of Tamil Nadu ( "2025 INSC 802": 2025 CaseBase(SC) 645), the Court reiterated that an appellate court cannot act as a revisional court to enhance punishment in an accused's appeal.

Concurrency Of Life Imprisonment Sentences

Addressing the trial court's direction to run multiple life sentences consecutively, the bench cited the Constitution Bench decision in Muthuramalingam and Ors. vs. State, Represented by Inspector of Police ( "(2016) 8 SCC 313": 2016 CaseBase(SC) 1178). The Court affirmed that since life imprisonment fundamentally spans the remainder of a person's natural life, ordering multiple life terms or fixed terms to run consecutively is logically and legally unworkable.

The Court has following directions:

"We, therefore, set aside the High Court’s order of enhancement of sentence of the Appellant from that of life imprisonment to that of imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life... We, therefore, direct that the sentences would run concurrently."

Background

The dispute originated from a triple murder and robbery incident in 2007 in Kanyakumari District involving the appellant and a co-accused. Following trial, the Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 120-B, 449, 302, 392, 364, and 201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, awarding multiple life sentences and fixed terms, directing all sentences to run consecutively.

On appeal, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court set aside the conviction under Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 but invoked its suo moto revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to enhance the appellant's sentence to life imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life, while retaining the direction for consecutive sentences.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's enhancement of the sentence and modified the direction, ordering all sentences awarded to the appellant to run concurrently.

Case Details:
Case No.: Criminal Appeal Nos. 3884-3885 of 2026
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 880
Case Title: Gopi @ Sahaya Puruna v. The State, Rep. by the Inspector of Police

Source: 2026 CaseBase(SC) 799