Back
2026 Supreme(SC) 729
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. NAGARATHNA, UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.
Karan Chettri & Another – Appellants
Versus
State of Sikkim – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 3030 of 2026 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 8847-8848 of 2025)
Decided on : 20-05-2026
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Manika Tripathy, AOR.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sameer Abhyankar, AOR Mr. Aryan Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Krishna Rastogi, Adv. Mr. Nalin Talwar, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINT
Appeal by accused against conviction and sentence – Accused has right to challenge his conviction, but he has no right to insist upon continuance of an illegal sentence.
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 386 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 427] – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 376D and 450 read with Section 34 – Appeal by accused against conviction and sentence – Prohibition under Section 386(b) cannot be understood as conferring upon accused right to insist upon continuance of a sentence which law forbids – Although Section 386(b) CrPC does not empower appellate court, in an appeal preferred by accused, to enhance sentence, where sentence awarded by trial court is contrary to statutory mandate and is below prescribed minimum punishment, appellate court’s act of substituting illegal sentence with minimum sentence prescribed by law is not an “enhancement” in exercise of powers under Section 386(b) – Rather, it amounts to a suo motu correction of an illegality/error apparent on face of record to bring sentence in conformity with mandatory statutory requirement – Increasing sentence from twelve years to twenty years, where twenty years is minimum punishment prescribed by statute, was legally permissible notwithstanding bar contained in Section 386(b) – Accused has right to challenge his conviction, but he has no right to insist upon continuance of an illegal sentence – Appellate court, by raising sentence to statutory minimum, is not making the sentence harsher by choice but is merely giving effect to what law compulsorily required from outset. (Paras 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26)
Facts of the case:
Appellants have preferred present criminal appeals aggrieved by final judgment and order dated 12.06.2024 passed by the High Court of Sikkim in Criminal Appeal No.07 of 2022 and Criminal Appeal No.08 of 2022 wherein the High Court partly allowed the said appeals by setting aside the appellants’ conviction under Section 376(2)(1) of the Indian Penal Code 1860 but upheld the conviction under Section 376D of IPC and Section 450 read with Section 34 of IPC and further enhanced the sentence awarded from twelve years to twenty years.
Findings of Court:
Embargo contained in Section 386(b) CrPC against enhancement of sentence in an appeal preferred by the accused assumes that the sentence sought to be interfered with is one lawfully imposed and therefore capable of being protected by the procedural safeguard against aggravation. However, a sentence imposed below the statutory minimum is a departure from that assumption. Such a sentence is not merely inadequate, but it is one rendered in derogation of the legal mandate and to that extent, suffers from a jurisdictional infirmity. The accused can acquire no vested right in the continuance of an order which the law itself does not sanction.
Result : Criminal Appeals dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. case history, trial court conviction, and procedural background of the appeal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. parties' contentions regarding section 386 crpc and sentencing enhancement. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. statutory requirements for section 376d ipc and relevant judicial precedents. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. distinguishing appellate powers under section 386 crpc from suo motu revisional jurisdiction. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 5. correction of illegal, sub-minimum sentences is not prohibited enhancement. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 6. final order dismissing the criminal appeals to uphold statutory minimum sentencing. (Para 26) |
JUDGMENT :
NAGARATHNA, J.
Leave granted.
2. The appellants have preferred the present criminal appeals aggrieved by the final judgment and order dated 12.06.2024 passed by the High Court of Sikkim in Criminal Appeal No.07 of 2022 and Criminal Appeal No.08 of 2022 wherein the High Court partly allowed the said appeals by setting aside the appellants’ conviction under Section 376(2)(1) of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) but upheld the conviction under Section 376D of IPC and Section 450 read with Section 34 of IPC and further enhanced the sentence awarded from twelve years to twenty years.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a FIR No.01/2021 was registered on 13.01.2021 at Yangang Police Station against the appellants under Sections 376D read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. In the said FIR, it was alleged that on 10.01.2021 at 00:00 hours the mother of the complainant, aged 52 was raped by the appellants herein at her residence.
4. Upon completion of the investigation and submission of chargesheet, the trial commenced against the appellants before the Sessions Court in Sessions Trial (Fast Track) Case No.02 of 2021 that ultimately culminated into their conviction vide judgement dated 19.03.2022 under Section 376D, 376(2)(1) and Section 450 read with Section 34 of IPC. The appellants were consequently sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a term of twelve years with a fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offence under Section 376D. They were further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a term of twelve years with a fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offence under Section 376(2)(1)of IPC. Lastly, they were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a term of seven years with a fine of Rs.5,000/-each for the commission offence under Section 450 of IPC. Each of the aforementioned sentences was directed to run concurrently.
5. Aggrieved by the judgment conviction and sentence dated 19.03.2022 of the Sessions Court, the appellants preferred Criminal Appeal No.07 of 2022 and Criminal Appeal No.08 of 2022 before High Court of Sikkim at Gangtok. By impugned judgment dated 12.06.2024 the High Court partly allowed the aforesaid criminal appeals preferred by the appellants and consequently set aside the order of conviction dated 19.03.2022 of the Sessions Court under Section 376(2)(1). However, the High Court upheld the appellants’ conviction under Section 376D of IPC and Section 450 read with Section 34 of IPC and proceeded to enhance their sentence from twelve years to twenty years. While enhancing the sentence, the High Court observed that the sentence of twelve years meted out by the Sessions Court for the offence under Section 376D of the IPC was erroneous as the same was not in accordance with the statutory requirement of the said section and flew in the face of mandate of law.
6. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court dated 12.06.2024, the appellants have preferred the present criminal appeal.
7. We have heard Ms. Manika Tripathy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned standing counsel for the respondent-State of Sikkim at length. We have perused the impugned judgment as well as the material on record.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted both on the merits of the case as well as on the fact that there w
