1. Conviction for penetrative sexual assault under POCSO Act and IPC — Appeal against conviction — Enhancement of sentence by appellate court in the absence of State appeal. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 10 , 12 , 34 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 856
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. NAGARATHNA, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ
Sachin – Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. of 2025 (Arising Out Of SLP (Crl.) Nos.4795-4797 of 2025)
Decided on : 21-04-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Sangeeta Kumar, AOR Mrs. Vithika Garg, Adv. Ms. Vidushi Garg, Adv. Mr. Hemant Kumar Tripathi, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Sangeeta Kumar, AOR Mrs. Vithika Garg, Adv. Ms. Vidushi Garg, Adv. Mr. Hemant Kumar Tripathi, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR
The appellate court cannot enhance a convict's sentence when the appeal is filed by the convict and no appeal for enhancement has been filed by the state or victim, violating rights under natural justice.
Headnote:(A) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 3(a), 4, 5(m), 6 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 376 - Appeal against sentence - Appellant wrongfully convicted for 11 years - Original sentence of 7 years re-imposed by the Supreme Court after observing due process was not followed in enhancing the sentence and natural justice was denied to the appellant. (Paras 2, 36)
(B) Appellate Jurisdiction - Court cannot enhance the sentence in an appeal filed by the convict - Rights of the accused must be respected while determining sentence; engaging in enhancement violates legal provisions if state or complainant has not appealed. (Paras 24-28)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted of penetrative sexual assault against a 4-year-old and sentenced to seven years imprisonment. The sentence was enhanced to life imprisonment by the High Court without a state or victim's appeal, which was contested by the appellant. (Paras 5, 36)
Findings of Court:
The original sentence of seven years is restored as the enhancement was procedurally incorrect and violated the rights of the appellant. (Paras 32-36)
Issues: Whether an appellate court can enhance a sentence in an appeal filed by a convict, specifically when no appeal for enhancement has been filed by the state, complainant or victim. (Paras 24-28)
Ratio Decidendi: An accused cannot be put in a worse position while appealing a conviction; the court reaffirmed that sentencing must respect due process. (Paras 27-28)
Result: Appeals allowed; sentence restored to seven years, and the appellant is released from jail. (Paras 39, 40)
Judgement Key Points
Key Points: - An appellate court cannot enhance a convict's sentence when the appeal is filed by the convict and no appeal for enhancement has been filed by the state or victim, as this violates rights under natural justice [judgement_subject]. - The High Court enhanced the appellant's sentence to life imprisonment without a state or victim's appeal, which was contested by the appellant [Facts of the case]. - The original sentence of seven years is restored as the enhancement was procedurally incorrect and violated the rights of the appellant [Findings of Court]. - An accused cannot be put in a worse position while appealing a conviction; the court reaffirmed that sentencing must respect due process [Ratio Decidendi]. - In an appeal from a conviction, an appellate court cannot alter the nature or extent of the sentence so as to enhance it (!) . - The principle of "no reformatio in peius" dictates that an appellant cannot be placed in a worse position as a result of filing an appeal (!) . - The appellate court cannot enhance the sentence in an appeal filed by the convict; rights of the accused must be respected while determining sentence; engaging in enhancement violates legal provisions if the state or complainant has not appealed [judgement_act_referred]. - The appellate court cannot enhance the sentence in an appeal filed by the accused/convict, while affirming the conviction, by exercising its revisional jurisdiction (!) . - The appellant was released from jail as he had completed more than the originally imposed sentence of seven years (!) . - Appeals were allowed, and the sentence was restored to seven years [Result].
What is the extent of an appellate court's power to enhance a convict's sentence when the appeal is filed by the convict and no appeal for enhancement has been filed by the state or victim?
What are the rights of an accused when an appellate court considers enhancing their sentence?
How does the principle of "no reformatio in peius" apply to an appellate court's power to enhance a sentence in an appeal filed by the convict?
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
- constitutional law
Table of Contents
2. Whether appellate court can enhance sentence in an appeal filed by the accused — Suo motu revisional powers under Section 401 CrPC versus appellate limits under Section 386 CrPC. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 )
3. Analysis of Section 386 and 401 CrPC — Distinction between appellate and revisional jurisdiction — Prohibition of leaving an appellant worse-off through the exercise of a statutory remedy. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 )
4. Appellate court cannot enhance sentence in an appeal filed by the accused against conviction, as it violates the principle of no reformatio in peius. (Para 18 , 23 , 27 , 33 )
5. Orders enhancing sentence set aside — Original sentence restored — Appellant released from jail having served the required term. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 39 )
6. Can an appellate court enhance a sentence in an appeal filed by the accused?
No. Under Section 386(b)(iii) CrPC, in an appeal from conviction, the appellate court may alter the nature or extent of the sentence, but specifically not so as to enhance the same. (Para 18 , 19 , 23 )
7. What is the legal principle of reformatio in peius?
It is a principle of procedure and equity ensuring that a person who avails a legal remedy, such as filing an appeal, is not placed in a worse position as a result. (Para 32 , 33 )
8. Can the High Court use its revisional powers under Section 401 CrPC to enhance a sentence during an accused's appeal?
No. The High Court cannot exercise suo motu revisional jurisdiction to enhance a sentence while exercising appellate jurisdiction in an appeal filed by the convict, particularly when no appeal for enhancement was filed by the State, victim, or complainant. (Para 27 )
9. What is the distinction between appellate and revisional jurisdiction?
Appellate jurisdiction involves a rehearing on law and facts invoked by an aggrieved person. Revisional jurisdiction is a power of superintendence to ensure subordinate courts act within their authority and according to law. (Para 28 )
JUDGMENT :
NAGARATHNA, J.
Leave granted.
2. This is an unfortunate case where the appellant herein, instead of suffering a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven years has been incarcerated for eleven years simply owing to the fact that Criminal Appeal No.30/2015 preferred by him before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, the matter was remitted to the Special Court for enhancement of sentence without even adhering to the salient principles of natural justice.
3. The appellant herein faced trial pursuant to FIR No. 154/2013 registered with P.S. Bhadrawati District, State of Maharashtra under Sections 3 (a) and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, “POCSO Act”) and Section 3 63-A, 376 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short, “IPC”) and Sections 3 (1)(xii) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Charges were framed against the appellant under the aforesaid sections.
4. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant was a neighbour of the family of the minor victim, aged four years. On 15.09.2013, while the father of the minor victim was away for work and the mother had gone out for cooking, the appellant induced the minor victim to his house, undressed her and committed the offence of rape on her. Two independent witnesses residing in the same neighbourhood informed the minor victim’s mother about the incident. Later, the minor victim narrated the incident to the complainant who took his daughter to a doctor. After gathering courage, the complainant registered Crime No.154/2013 on 23.09.2023 under the aforesaid provisions.
5. By judgment dated 24.11.2014, the Special Judge, Warora, concluded that the prosecution had proved that the accused had committed penetrative sexual assault on the minor victim. Thereby, the Special Court convicted the appellant herein for the offences punishable under Sections 3 (a) and 4 of the POCSO Act and Section 3 76 of IPC. Consequently, the appellant was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. As offence under Section 3 76 IPC was merged in the aforesaid offences, no separate punishment was awarded by the Special Court.
6. Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the accused- appellant herein preferred Criminal Appeal No.30/2015 before the High Court. It is pertinent to note that the State had not assailed by way of an appeal the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven years imposed by the Special Court on the appellant herein. Neither was any appeal filed by the complainant or on behalf of the victim.
7. On the other hand, the appellant – accused assailed the judgment of conviction and sentence before the High Court. By impugned judgment dated 26.02.2016, the High Court affirmed the finding of the Special Court to the effect that the victim was present in the house of the accused at the time of incident and there was no one else in the house except the accused and the victim. Pertinently, the High Court was of the view that this exceptional fact had not been sufficiently explained by the appellant. Relying on the evidence of Dr. Dipti Vinay Shrirame (P.W.6) and the medical examination report of the victim issued by the General Hospital, Chandrapur, the High Court concluded that the fact of penetrative sexual assault was proved beyond reasonable doubt. Also, as per Section 29 of POCSO Act, the appellant was found to have failed to discharge the burden of explaining the presence of the victim in his house and the medical evidence which proved the commission of penetrative sexual assault.
8. Section 3 of POCSO Act defines when a person is said to commit penetrative sexual assault and Section 4 prescribes the punishment for the same. Prior to its amendment, Section 4 provided for imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than seven years but whic
