In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has clarified the extent of the High Courts' suo motu powers, particularly in cases where an appeal has been filed by a convict. The apex court has firmly stated that High Courts cannot, on their own motion, enhance a sentence or convict an accused on a new charge if the state, victim, or complainant has not filed an appeal seeking such action. This pronouncement safeguards the rights of the accused and ensures a fair judicial process.
The ruling came in the case of Nagarajan, who had appealed to the Supreme Court against an order of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. Nagarajan was initially accused of trespassing into his neighbor's house and outraging her modesty. The trial court acquitted him of the charge of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) but convicted him under Sections 354 (outraging modesty) and 448 (house trespass).
Nagarajan then appealed to the High Court against this conviction. Surprisingly, the High Court not only upheld his conviction under Sections 354 and 448 IPC but also, on its own initiative (suo motu), convicted him for abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC and increased his sentence to five years of rigorous imprisonment.
The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, overturned the High Court's decision regarding the conviction under Section 306 IPC and restored the original conviction and sentence as ordered by the sessions court. The Supreme Court emphasized that in the absence of an appeal by the victim, complainant, or the state, the High Court cannot exercise suo motu revision to either enhance the sentence or convict the appellant on any other charge. The court referred to its own precedent in Sachin vs State of Maharashtra, observing that an accused should not be placed in a worse position as a result of filing an appeal.
The Supreme Court's analysis of Sections 386 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is particularly insightful. Section 386(b)(iii) CrPC allows an appellate court to alter a sentence in an appeal but explicitly states that it cannot enhance the sentence. Section 401(3) CrPC further restricts the High Court from converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction while exercising revisional jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court also highlighted the importance of the trial court being careful while passing an order of sentence, ensuring that it aligns with the charges framed and the findings arrived at during the conviction. This observation underscores the need for judicial restraint and adherence to established legal principles.
This ruling reinforces the principle that an appeal is a valuable statutory and constitutional right in criminal cases. It prevents the High Court from using its suo motu powers to the detriment of the accused when no appeal has been filed by the aggrieved parties seeking enhancement of the sentence or conviction on additional charges. The Supreme Court's judgment clarifies the boundaries of the High Court's revisional jurisdiction, ensuring a more balanced and equitable administration of justice.
