Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and S.C. Sharma held that, in an appeal filed by a convict, the appellate court is not empowered to enhance the sentence unless a separate appeal or revision has been filed by the State, the victim, or the complainant specifically seeking such enhancement. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Sachin v. State Of Maharashtra (2025). 

What was the Background of Sachin v. State of Maharashtra (2025) Case? 

• The appellant was charged with offences under Section 3(a) punishable under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and under Sections 363-A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as Sections 3(1)(xii) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 
• The case involved allegations that the appellant, who was a neighbor of the victim's family, induced a four-year-old minor victim to his house when her parents were away, undressed her, and committed the offence of rape. 
• The Special Judge, Warora, convicted the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 3(a) and 4 of the POCSO Act and Section 376 of IPC, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for seven years plus a fine of Rs. 2,000. 
• The appellant filed Criminal Appeal No. 30/2015 before the High Court, challenging his conviction and sentence. The State did not file any appeal against the inadequacy of the sentence. 
• The High Court, while maintaining the conviction, noted that the Special Court had overlooked the provisions of Sections 5(m) and 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 376(2)(i) of the IPC. The High Court issued a show cause notice to the appellant regarding sentence enhancement. 
• Despite objections from the appellant's counsel, the High Court remitted the case to the Special Court for reconsideration of the quantum of sentence. 
• The Special Court subsequently enhanced the sentence from seven years to life imprisonment plus a fine of Rs. 5,000. 
• The appellant filed Criminal Appeal No. 311/2021 before the High Court challenging this enhancement. The Division Bench suggested that the appellant approach the Supreme Court. 
• Due to these proceedings, the appellant, who was initially sentenced to seven years, had already served eleven years and eight months in prison. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court observed that in an appeal filed by an accused against conviction, the appellate court cannot enhance the sentence when neither the State, victim, nor complainant has filed an appeal or revision seeking such enhancement. 
• The Court noted that Section 386(b)(iii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure explicitly prohibits enhancement of sentence in an appeal filed by the convict against conviction. 
• The Supreme Court held that while exercising appellate jurisdiction at the instance of a convict, the High Court cannot act as a revisional court, particularly when no appeal or revision has been filed by the State, victim, or complainant seeking enhancement of sentence. 
• The Court observed that for exercise of powers of the appellate court for enhancement of sentence, the CrPC provides specific procedures, and such enhancement can only be considered in an appeal filed by the State, victim, or complainant after giving the accused an opportunity to show cause against such enhancement. 
• The Supreme Court determined that the High Court erred in remanding the matter to the Special Court for enhancing the sentence imposed on the appellant, especially in an appeal filed by the accused seeking to set aside his conviction and sentence. 
• The Court found that the orders of the High Court and consequently of the Special Court were erroneous and had led to the appellant suffering incarceration exceeding the original sentence by more than four years. 
• The Supreme Court exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to restore the original sentence of seven years and ordered the immediate release of the appellant, as he had already served more than the originally imposed sentence. 

What is Section 427 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. BNSS ? 

• Section 427(c) specifically addresses the powers of the Appellate Court when dealing with an appeal for enhancement of sentence. 
• Before new Criminal laws the provision was covered Under Section 386 of  Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (CrPC)  
• The Appellate Court is empowered with three distinct courses of action in an appeal for enhancement:  
  • Under sub-clause (i), the Court may reverse the finding and sentence, and acquit or discharge the accused, or order a retrial by a competent Court. 
  • Under sub-clause (ii), the Court may alter the finding while maintaining the same sentence that was previously imposed. 
  • Under sub-clause (iii), the Court may, with or without altering the finding, modify the nature or extent, or both the nature and extent, of the sentence, either enhancing or reducing it. 
• The provision creates a clear framework under which enhancement of sentence can occur only when an appeal for enhancement has been specifically filed. 
• The statute explicitly distinguishes between appeals from conviction under clause (b) and appeals for enhancement under clause (c), establishing separate procedures and powers for each scenario. 
• The provision must be read in conjunction with the first proviso which mandates that no enhancement of sentence can be ordered without giving the accused an opportunity to show cause against such enhancement. 
• The second proviso places a limitation on the Appellate Court's power to enhance sentences by stipulating that it cannot impose a greater punishment than what could have been imposed by the original Court passing the order or sentence under appeal. 
• Clause (c) thereby creates a complete statutory scheme for sentence enhancement that is exercisable only within the framework of a properly constituted appeal specifically seeking enhancement. 
• The legislative intent clearly establishes that enhancement powers are restricted to appeals filed with the specific purpose of seeking enhancement, typically by the State, complainant, or victim, and not in appeals filed by the accused challenging conviction. 

Cases Referred 

• Nadir Khan v. State (Delhi Admn.), (1975) :  
  • This case addressed whether the High Court, in revision under Section 401 Cr.P.C., has jurisdiction to enhance a sentence in the absence of an appeal by the State against inadequacy of sentence under Section 377.  
  • The Supreme Court held that the High Court has undoubted jurisdiction to act suo motu in criminal revision in appropriate cases, even when the State has not preferred an appeal under Section 377.  
  • The Court noted that Section 401 expressly preserves the High Court's power to call for records without the intervention of another agency, keeping alive the exercise of power when something extraordinary comes to its knowledge. 
• Eknath Shankarrao Mukkawar v. State of Maharashtra, (1977) :  
  • In this case, a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court rejected the submission that the High Court could not invoke its revisional powers under Section 401 Cr.P.C. to enhance the sentence suo motu. 
  •  The Court clarified that the new Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, had not abolished the High Court's power of enhancement of sentence by exercising revisional jurisdiction suo motu. 
  • The Court held that the High Court's power of enhancement of sentence in appropriate cases by exercising suo motu power of revision still exists under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.