In a landmark decision reinforcing the rights of accused persons, the Supreme Court of India has held that the right to file an appeal against conviction is not only a statutory right but also a constitutional right. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma in the case titled Nagarajan v. State of Tamil Nadu.
The Court strongly emphasized that the ability to challenge a conviction goes beyond legislative provisions and is integral to the principles of justice and fair trial enshrined in the Constitution. This decision further solidifies the protection afforded to individuals who seek to challenge their conviction or sentence through appellate procedures.
Quoting the bench, the Court observed:
“That a right of appeal is an invaluable right, particularly for an accused who cannot be condemned eternally by a trial judge, without having a right to seek a re-look of the Trial Court’s judgment by a superior or appellate court. The right to prefer an appeal is not only a statutory right but also a constitutional right in the case of an accused. This is because an accused has a right to not only challenge a judgment on its merits, namely, with respect to the conviction and sentence being imposed on him, but also on the procedural aspects of the trial.”
The Court elaborated that an accused person has the right to challenge not only the findings and conclusions drawn by the trial court but also to point out any procedural errors, lapses, or irregularities in the conduct of the trial. These may include violations of due process, improper application of the law, or failure to consider relevant evidence. Such flaws can significantly impact the outcome of a trial and must be scrutinized by the appellate court.
The judgment further states:
“An accused can question procedural flaws, impropriety and lapses that may have been committed by the Trial Court in arriving at the judgment of conviction and imposition of sentence in an appeal filed against the same. It then becomes the duty of the appellate court to consider the appeal from the perspective of the accused-appellant therein to see if he has a good case on merits, and to set aside the judgment of the Trial Court and acquit the accused, or to remand the matter for a re-trial in accordance with law, or to reduce the sentence while maintaining the conviction or, in the alternative, to dismiss the appeal.”
The case before the Court arose from a scenario where the High Court, while deciding the convict’s appeal, enhanced the sentence through suo motu revision—despite no appeal or revision being filed by the State or complainant. The Supreme Court found this action legally untenable and clarified the limits of the High Court’s jurisdiction in such matters.
The bench held:
“In our considered view, the appellate court in an appeal filed by the accused cannot while maintaining the conviction enhance the sentence. While exercising its appellate jurisdiction, the High Court cannot act as a revisional court, particularly, when no appeal or revision has been filed either by the State, victim or complainant for seeking enhancement of sentence against accused.”
This ruling draws a clear distinction between appellate and revisional powers, emphasizing that the High Court cannot enhance punishment suo motu when deciding an appeal filed only by the convict. It underscores the need for procedural fairness and respect for the adversarial process, where the accused must be given an opportunity to respond to any move for sentence enhancement.
