Supreme Court of India· 20 May 2026

Under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, can the High Court exercise suo motu revisional jurisdiction to correct an illegally low sentence while hearing an appeal filed only by the convict, with no appeal by the State or the victim for enhancement?

KARAN CHETTRI & ANOTHER v. STATE OF SIKKIM

2026 INSC 659
Coram: B.V. Nagarathna; Ujjal Bhuyan

🔖 Save this judgment 🔔 Follow s.386(b)(iii), s.401 Code of Cri…📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

Yes. The High Court's exercise of suo motu revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 to bring a sentence below the mandatory minimum under Section 376D into line with the statute is not an enhancement in appellate discretion but a correction of a patent illegality, undertaken ex debito justitiae; accepting the contrary view would let a manifestly illegal sentence be perpetuated merely because only the convict, and not the State or the victim, had appealed.

Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s.386(b)(iii), s.401 — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.376D — Suo motu correction of an illegal sentence is not "enhancement" — Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s.386(b)(iii) — Correction of an illegal sentence is not "enhancement" — Held: Where a sentence imposed by the trial court is below the statutory minimum, an appellate court's act of substituting it with the minimum sentence prescribed by law is not an "enhancement" within the bar under Section 386(b)(iii). Such a substitution is a suo motu correction of an error apparent on the face of the record, and a sentence contrary to the statutory mandate suffers from a jurisdictional infirmity in which the accused acquires no vested right. (¶22, 23) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s.401 — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.376D — Suo motu revisional correction of a below-minimum sentence — Appeal dismissed — Held further: The High Court's exercise of suo motu revisional jurisdiction under Section 401, bringing a sentence below Section 376D's minimum into line with the statute, was not an enhancement in appellate discretion but a correction of a patent illegality, ex debito justitiae. Accepting the contrary view would elevate a procedural limitation over substantive legality and let a manifestly illegal sentence be perpetuated merely because only the convict, and not the State or the victim, had appealed; the appeals were accordingly dismissed. (¶24, 25, 26)

In the Court's own words

Paragraph 24That being so, the High Court, by substituting the sentence awarded by the trial court with the minimum punishment prescribed by statute, did not exercise a power of enhancement under Section 386(b). It did not impose a harsher punishment in the exercise of appellate discretion. All it did was to discharge its duty to bring the sentence into conformity with the command of the statute. The source of such action lies not in the power to enhance, but in the obligation of the court, acting ex debito justitiae, to correct a patent illegality and ensure that the judgment affirmed by the judicial process is one which the law authorizes.

Paragraph 25To hold otherwise would mean that a manifestly illegal sentence, merely because it was challenged by the convict and not by the State or the victim, must be perpetuated despite being contrary to the minimum punishment ordained by Parliament. Such a construction would elevate a procedural limitation over substantive legality and permit the appellate process to become an instrument for preserving an illegality. That, in our view, can never be the outcome. The prohibition under Section 386(b) cannot be understood as conferring upon an accused a right to insist upon the continuance of a sentence which the law forbids. The substitution of the sentence of twelve years with the mandatory minimum of twenty years by the High Court, therefore, is not an enhancement of punishment in the true sense, but a suo motu correction of an error apparent on the face of the record, undertaken to give effect to the law as it is and to restore legality to the sentencing process.

Acts & Sections

s.386(b)(iii), s.401 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s.376D Indian Penal Code, 1860s.450 Indian Penal Code, 1860

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

Read the full text of KARAN CHETTRI & ANOTHER v. STATE OF SIKKIM — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

Under Section 386(b)(iii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which bars an appellate court from enhancing a sentence in an appeal filed by the accused, can the appellate court still raise a sentence that was fixed below the statutory minimum prescribed by law?How did the Court distinguish its earlier ruling in Sachin v. State of Maharashtra, which restrained a High Court from enhancing a sentence suo motu in an appeal filed by the accused, from the facts of this case?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections