The Supreme Court has ruled that a High Court cannot enhance the sentence imposed on a convict while deciding an appeal filed by the accused when there is no separate appeal or challenge for enhancement by the State, victim or complainant. 

The bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi held that where multiple sentences include imprisonment for life, such sentences cannot be directed to run consecutively and must run concurrently.

The case arose out of a serious criminal incident that occurred on November 8, 2007, in Kanyakumari District. According to the prosecution case, the accused persons entered the residence of Dr. A. Malik Mohammed, where Gnanaprakasam was employed as a watchman. The prosecution alleged that the two accused killed Gnanaprakasam and subsequently Dr. Mohammed. They then threatened Dr. Mohammed’s wife, Katheeja Bibi, demanded valuables and abducted her. The prosecution further alleged that the accused took her away in Dr. Mohammed’s vehicle and later caused her death.

Buy Now: 50+ Supreme Court Judgments – July 2026

Following the discovery of the bodies on November 12, 2007, an FIR was registered at Nesamony Nagar Police Station, Nagercoil, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Both accused were subsequently arrested, and the Sessions Court framed multiple charges, including conspiracy, house-trespass, murder, robbery, abduction and causing disappearance of evidence.

The trial against the present appellant proceeded separately after the co-accused absconded. In its judgment dated October 1, 2009, the Trial Court acquitted the appellant of certain charges but convicted him under Sections 120-B, 449, 302 on three counts, 392, 201 and 364 of the IPC. The Trial Court imposed multiple sentences of life imprisonment along with fixed-term imprisonment and fines, and directed the sentences to run consecutively.

The appellant challenged his conviction and sentence before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. During the proceedings, the High Court clubbed his appeal with proceedings concerning the death sentence imposed on the co-accused and also exercised suo motu revisional jurisdiction.

The High Court ultimately set aside the conviction under Section 120-B IPC but maintained the convictions under Sections 449, 302 on three counts, 392, 201 and 364 IPC. However, instead of maintaining the life imprisonment imposed by the Trial Court, the High Court enhanced the sentence to imprisonment for the remainder of the appellant’s natural life, along with a fine of ₹15,000. It also affirmed the Trial Court’s direction that the sentences should run consecutively.

The appellant thereafter approached the Supreme Court. Significantly, by an order dated March 16, 2026, the Supreme Court had issued notice limited to the question of sentence.

The Supreme Court identified two principal questions for determination: first, whether the High Court was justified in enhancing the sentence while exercising its revisional jurisdiction; and second, whether the High Court was correct in directing the various sentences to run consecutively.

The Court answered both questions in favour of the appellant.

On the first issue, the Supreme Court relied upon its recent decision in Nagarajan v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported as 2025 INSC 802, which had followed the principles laid down in Sachin v. State of Maharashtra.

The Court reiterated the fundamental principle that an appeal filed by an accused cannot result in the accused being placed in a worse position merely because he exercised his statutory right of appeal. Under Section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an appellate court may alter findings or reduce or otherwise modify a sentence, but an appeal filed by the accused cannot ordinarily be converted into a vehicle for enhancing his punishment.

The Supreme Court emphasised that the right of appeal is an important statutory and constitutional safeguard available to an accused. The appellate process must therefore be examined from the perspective of the accused who has invoked the jurisdiction of the appellate court. The Court observed that, where the State, victim or complainant has not challenged the sentence seeking enhancement, the accused cannot be left worse off merely because he chose to appeal.

The Court thus declared that in the absence of an appeal by the State, victim or complainant seeking enhancement, an appellate court cannot suo motu enhance the sentence of the convict so as to place him in a position worse than that existing before he filed the appeal.

Applying this principle to the case, the Supreme Court noted that the appellant had himself approached the High Court against his conviction and sentence. Although the High Court was simultaneously dealing with the death-sentence reference concerning the co-accused and exercised suo motu revisional jurisdiction, there was no appeal for enhancement filed by the State or the complainant against the appellant.

Despite this, the High Court enhanced the appellant’s life imprisonment to imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life.

The Supreme Court held that such enhancement was impermissible and illegal. It accordingly set aside the High Court’s enhancement and restored the position of life imprisonment imposed by the Trial Court.

The second significant issue concerned the direction that the multiple sentences should run consecutively.

For this purpose, the Supreme Court examined the Constitution Bench judgment in Muthuramalingam v. State, which considered the operation of Section 31 of the CrPC in cases involving multiple convictions and sentences.

The Court noted that Section 31 permits a court, in appropriate circumstances, to direct several punishments imposed at one trial to run consecutively. However, the legal position becomes fundamentally different where one or more of the sentences is imprisonment for life.

Referring to the principles laid down in O.M. Cherian and Duryodhan Rout, the Supreme Court reiterated that imprisonment for life means imprisonment for the remainder of the normal life of the convict. Consequently, it is legally unworkable to require a convict to undergo one life sentence and thereafter begin another sentence of imprisonment, whether for life or for a fixed term.

The Court specifically reaffirmed that multiple life sentences imposed in the same trial must run concurrently. A fixed-term sentence imposed along with life imprisonment must also run concurrently with the life sentence.

The appellant had received life imprisonment under five counts—one under Section 449 IPC, three under Section 302 IPC relating to the deaths of Dr. A. Malik Mohammed, Katheeja Bibi and Gnanaprakasam, and one under Section 364 IPC.

In addition, he had been sentenced to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 201 IPC. The Trial Court had directed these sentences, including the life sentences and fixed-term sentence, to operate consecutively, and the High Court had affirmed that direction.

The Supreme Court held that this approach was contrary to the settled legal position.

The Court therefore modified the sentencing direction and ordered that the sentences imposed upon the appellant shall run concurrently.

In its concluding determination, the Supreme Court held that the High Court had wrongly exercised its suo motu revisional jurisdiction by enhancing the appellant’s sentence in the absence of an enhancement appeal by the State, victim or complainant. It further held that the direction requiring the sentences to run consecutively was legally unsustainable.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court disposed of the appeals by setting aside the enhancement from life imprisonment to imprisonment for the remainder of natural life and directing that the sentences run concurrently. 

Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy

To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Read More: Political Influence Can’t Override Service Rules: Supreme Court