High Court Cannot Convert Acquittal Into Conviction Or Enhance Sentence In Accused's Appeal, Says Supreme Court

A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma heard Criminal Appeal Nos.2892-2893 of 2025 arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos.621-622 of 2024, challenging the Madras High Court’s suo motu revisional order which convicted the appellant for abetment of suicide (Section 306 IPC) and criminal trespass (Section 448 IPC) after the Trial Court had acquitted him of Section 306 and convicted him under Sections 354 and 448 IPC.

The Supreme Court held that a High Court could not, in an appeal filed solely by an accused, exercise suo motu revisional powers so as to convert an acquittal into a conviction or to enhance sentence when no appeal or revision had been filed by the State, complainant or victim. The Court set aside the High Court’s conviction under Section 306 IPC and confirmed the Trial Court’s conviction and sentence under Sections 354 and 448 IPC. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “Sub-section (4) of Section 401 of CrPC states that where under the CrPC an appeal could have been filed and has not been filed, then no proceeding by way of revision could be entertained at the instance of the party who could have appealed. ... What is pertinent is that under Section 401 of CrPC, the High Court is not authorised to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction by exercise of revisional jurisdiction.” The Court noted the principle of no reformatio in peius and reiterated that the right of appeal was "an invaluable right" of an accused.

Background

The dispute arose from events of 11-12 July 2003 in a village in Tamil Nadu. The accused, a neighbour, allegedly entered the room of the deceased, hugged her and attempted to outrage her modesty; he fled after being scolded by the deceased’s mother-in-law. The next morning the deceased and her infant were missing. The deceased visited her elder daughter’s school and, later, in a nearby field consumed oleander seeds and administered poison to her infant; both were found and pronounced dead. A watchman lodged a complaint and FIR No.239/2003 was registered under Section 306 IPC against the appellant.

The investigation led to a charge-sheet and trial. The Trial Court altered charges to Sections 354 and 448 IPC, acquitted the appellant under Section 306 IPC, convicted him under Sections 354 and 448 and sentenced him to concurrent terms including simple imprisonment and fines. The appellant appealed to the Madras High Court against conviction under Sections 354 and 448. While the appeal was pending, the High Court suo motu entertained revisional powers under Section 401 CrPC, appointed an Amicus Curiae and, by its order dated 29.11.2021, allowed revision, convicted the appellant also under Section 306 IPC and imposed enhanced sentences.

On appeal, the Supreme Court followed its earlier decision in Sachin v. State of Maharashtra (21.04.2025) and held that the High Court had erred in converting acquittal into conviction and enhancing sentence in an appeal filed by the accused where no appeal or revision had been filed by the State, complainant or victim. The Supreme Court set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 306 IPC and confirmed the Sessions Court’s judgment as affirmed by the High Court insofar as Sections 354 and 448 IPC were concerned. The Court directed the appellant to undergo the sentence already imposed by the Trial Court and to surrender if the sentence remained uncompleted.

Case Details: Case No.: Criminal Appeal Nos.2892-2893 of 2025 (2025 INSC 802) Case Title: Nagarajan v. State of Tamil Nadu Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Not indicated in judgment] For the Respondent(s): [Not indicated in judgment]