Can a High Court, exercising suo moto revisional jurisdiction, enhance a convict’s sentence in the absence of any appeal for enhancement preferred by the State, the victim, or the complainant?

No. In the absence of an appeal preferred by the State, the victim or the complainant seeking enhancement, the appellate court cannot enhance the sentence of the convict on its own so as to leave the convict in a position worse off than he was prior to filing of the appeal; while exercising its appellate jurisdiction, a court cannot act as a revisional court to achieve enhancement where no appeal or revision for that purpose has been filed by the State, victim or complainant.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 386, Section 397, Section 401, Section 31 — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — enhancement of sentence — suo moto revisional jurisdiction — consecutive sentences — enhancement of sentence — no appeal for enhancement — impermissible — Held: In the absence of an appeal for enhancement preferred by the State, the victim or the complainant, an appellate or revisional court cannot enhance a convict's sentence so as to leave the convict worse off than before filing the appeal; the High Court's exercise of suo moto revisional jurisdiction to enhance the Appellant's sentence, absent any such appeal, was impermissible. (¶17–19) right of appeal — constitutional right — accused not to be left worse off — Held further: The right to prefer an appeal is not only a statutory right but also a constitutional right in the case of an accused, who cannot be left worse off for having exercised it. (¶17) life imprisonment — consecutive sentences barred — Section 31, CrPC — Held further: A sentence of life imprisonment cannot be directed to run consecutively, either with another life sentence or with a fixed-term sentence, since imprisonment for life implies imprisonment for the entire span of the convict's normal life; where multiple sentences are awarded including one of life imprisonment, all must run concurrently. (¶20–22) sentence modified — appeals disposed of — Held further: The enhancement of sentence was set aside and the direction for consecutive running of sentences was modified to direct concurrent running; the appeals were disposed of in these terms. (¶19, ¶22–24)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of GOPI @ SAHAYA PURUNA v. THE STATE, REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India