In a significant ruling upholding the rights of accused persons, the Supreme Court has held that a High Court cannot use its suo motu revisional powers to enhance the sentence or convict an accused on a new charge in an appeal filed solely by the accused.
The verdict came in the case of Nagarajan vs State of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Appeal Nos. 2892–2893 of 2025), where a Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma set aside a conviction under Section 306 IPC that had been imposed by the Madras High Court without any corresponding appeal by the State or complainant.
---
Background
Nagarajan, the appellant, was accused of trespassing into the home of a woman named Mariammal in July 2003 and attempting to outrage her modesty. Tragically, Mariammal reportedly consumed poison the next morning and administered the same to her infant daughter. Both died despite being rushed to the hospital.
A case was registered under Section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide). However, on May 29, 2015, the Trial Court acquitted Nagarajan of that charge but convicted him under Sections 354 and 448 IPC, sentencing him to three years and one month of simple imprisonment and imposing a fine.
When Nagarajan appealed to the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, the High Court suo motu initiated criminal revision and convicted him under Section 306 IPC, sentencing him to five years of rigorous imprisonment — even though neither the State nor the complainant had filed an appeal.
---
Supreme Court’s Reasoning
Setting aside the High Court’s suo motu conviction under Section 306, the Supreme Court made several key observations:
An accused cannot be punished more severely simply for exercising their right to appeal. Citing the principle of no reformatio in peius (one cannot be worse off by appealing), the Court stated:
> “A person should not be placed in a worse position as a result of filing an appeal... This principle is a part of fair procedure and natural justice.”
The Bench explained that Section 386(b)(iii) CrPC allows modification of a sentence but not enhancement, while Section 401(3) CrPC prohibits a revisional court from converting an acquittal into a conviction.
The Court reiterated that an appeal is not only a statutory right but a constitutional safeguard in criminal cases, and that allowing courts to worsen an appellant’s position would discourage appeals altogether.
---
Final Decision
The Supreme Court held that:
> “In an appeal filed by the accused, and in the absence of any appeal by the State or victim, the High Court cannot use suo motu revision to convict the appellant on a new charge or enhance his sentence.”
Accordingly, the conviction under Section 306 IPC was set aside, while the convictions under Sections 354 and 448 IPC — as imposed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court — were upheld.
Nagarajan was directed to surrender to serve the remaining portion of his sentence. If he fails to do so, the police have been instructed to ensure compliance.
---
This judgment reinforces a crucial tenet of criminal law: the right to appeal must be a shield, not a trap. By preserving the fairness of appellate proceedings,the Court has upheld the integrity of due process.
