Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 939

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. NAGARATHNA, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ.
Nagarajan – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2892-2893 of 2025 [Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 621-622 of 2024]
Decided On : 04-06-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. M.P.Srivignesh, Adv. Mr. Lakshman Raja. T, Adv. Mr. Sharavena Raghul Asr, Adv. Mr. Mithun Kumaar N, Adv. Mr. Manu Srinath, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. V.Krishnamurthy, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Adv. Ms. Azka Sheikh Kalia, Adv. Ms. Jahnavi Taneja, Adv. Mr. Veshal Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Danish Saifi, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINT
Appeal/Revision against conviction – Right to prefer appeal is not only a statutory right but also a constitutional right – Accused has right to not only challenge a judgment on its merits but also on procedural aspects of trial.
In an appeal filed only by accused/convict, High Court cannot suo motu exercise its revisional jurisdiction and enhance sentence against accused while maintaining conviction.
Sentence imposed must be concomitant with charge(s) framed and findings arrived at while arriving at judgment of conviction.

Headnote:
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 386 and 401 – Appeal/Revision against conviction – Right to prefer appeal is not only a statutory right but also a constitutional right – Accused has right to not only challenge a judgment on its merits but also on procedural aspects of trial – Accused can question procedural flaws, impropriety and lapses that may have been committed by Trial Court in arriving at judgment of conviction and imposition of sentence in an appeal filed against the same – It then becomes duty of appellate court to consider appeal from perspective of accused-appellant therein to see if he has a good case on merits – Appellate court in an appeal filed by accused cannot while maintaining conviction enhance sentence – While exercising its appellate jurisdiction, High Court cannot act as a revisional court, particularly, when no appeal or revision has been filed either by State, victim or complainant for seeking enhancement of sentence against accused – Power to enhance sentence can be exercised by appellate court only in appeal filed by State, victim or complainant, provided accused has had opportunity of showing cause against such enhancement. (Paras10,11 and 13)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 401 – Revisional jurisdiction – In an appeal filed only by accused/convict, High Court cannot suo motu exercise its revisional jurisdiction and enhance sentence against accused while maintaining conviction – All that High Court can do is to set-aside judgment of conviction and sentence and acquit accused, or while doing so, order for retrial, or in alternative, while maintaining conviction, reduce sentence. (Para 11)
(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 235 – Sentence – Trial Court should be very careful while passing order of sentence inasmuch as sentence imposed must be concomitant with charge(s) framed and findings arrived at while arriving at judgment of conviction – If charges are proved beyond reasonable doubt against accused, then sentence following a finding and judgment of conviction must be appropriate to nature of charge(s) which are proved by prosecution. (Para 12)
(D) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 306, 448 and 354 – Abetment of suicide, house trespass and attempt to outrage modesty – Conviction and sentence – Insofar as Section 306 of IPC is concerned, the Trial Court had acquitted the appellant – Neither State, nor victim or complainant had sought for enhancement of sentence, or sought for conviction and sentence under Section 306 of IPC before High Court – Conviction awarded for offences under Sections 354 and 448 of IPC has also resulted in conviction under Section 306 of IPC and enhanced sentence – Conviction and sentence of appellant under Section 306 of IPC set aside and judgment of Sessions Court as affirmed by High Court qua offences punishable under Sections 354 and 448 IPC upheld – Appellant directed to undergo sentence and to pay fine as imposed by Sessions Court. (Paras 15, 16 and 17)
Facts of the case:
Being aggrieved by common impugned order dated 29.11.2021 passed by High Court of Judicature at Madras Bench at Madurai dismissing Criminal Appeal preferred by appellant and allowing suo motu revision thereby convicting appellant under Sections 306 and 448 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, present Criminal Appeals have been filed by appellant (accused).
Findings of Court:
In the event accused has not yet completed the sentence imposed by Trial Court, he is directed to surrender before jurisdictional Chief Judicial Magistrate or before concerned Police Station for being lodged in jail to suffer the remainder of the sentence. In case of failure on the part of accused to surrender, appropriate action shall be taken up by the concerned Police Station to arrest the accused for being lodged in jail.
Result : Appeals allowed in part.

JUDGMENT :

B.V. NAGARATHNA, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Being aggrieved by the common impugned order dated 29.11.2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras Bench at Madurai dismissing the Criminal Appeal preferred by the appellant being Crl. A. (MD) No. 137/2015 and allowing the suo motu revision being Crl. R.C. (MD) No. 248/2015 thereby convicting the appellant under Sections 306 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) the present Criminal Appeals have been filed by the appellant (accused).

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant was the neighbour of the deceased Smt. Mariammal. On the night of 11.07.2003, the appellant entered the room of the deceased and while hugging her, attempted to outrage her modesty. Upon hearing the disturbance, the mother-in-law of the deceased intervened and scolded the appellant, who then fled from the premises. The next day i.e., on 12.07.2003, at around 5:00 A.M. the mother-in-law of the deceased found the deceased and her infant daughter missing from the house. Thereafter, she searched for them and enquired about their whereabouts from the deceased’s father. It was later revealed that in the morning, the deceased had visited the school where her elder daughter was studying in Class III and attempted to take her away. However, due to the absence of the warden, the teachers did not allow the child to leave. The deceased thereafter went to a nearby field with her infant of one and half years and committed suicide by consuming oleander seeds and also administered poison to her child. Both the deceased and her child were later discovered by a passerby who was grazing cattle nearby, who then alerted the village watchman. Although the child was still alive when found, she was declared dead when she was taken to the hospital.

4. Based on the complaint lodged by the watchman, FIR No. 239/2003 was registered with Kannivadi Police Station under Section 306 of IPC against the appellant. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed on 30.10.2003 against the appellant under Section 306 of IPC. The case was committed to the Mahila Court, Fast Track Court, Dindigul as S.C. No. 54 of 2007. The Trial Court altered the charges to Sections 354 and 448 of IPC and on 29.05.2015, the Trial Court acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 306 of IPC. The appellant was convicted under Sections 354 and 448 of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three years and one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 354 of IPC and a further sentence simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 448 of IPC. The Trial Court observed that the evidence on record reveals that the appellant trespassed into the house of deceased at midnight and hugged her. Accordingly, the Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 354 and 448 of IPC. Insofar as Section 306 of IPC was concerned, the Trial Court observed that the actions of the appellant did not constitute abetment of suicide as the appellant did not instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Hence, the Trial Court acquitted the appellant under Section 306 of IPC.

5. Being aggrieved by the conviction under Sections 354 and 448 of IPC, the appellant filed Criminal Appeal before the High Court being Crl. Appeal (MD) No. 137/2015. While admitting the appeal and entertaining the appellant’s application for suspension of sentence, the High Court, upon a prima facie appraisal of the Trial Court’s reasoning, formed the view that the appellant’s acquittal under Section 306 of IPC may require further examination. Observing that the evidence relating to abetment of suicide was not duly appreciated and noting that the State had not filed an appeal against the acquittal, the High Court by order dated 08.06.2015, suo motu directed the registration of a criminal revision case