High courts can't suo motu enhance punishment in appeal: SC
The
Supreme Court
on Wednesday held
high courts
cannot exercise suo motu revision powers either to enhance the sentence or to convict an accused on any other charge in the absence of appeal filed by the victim, complainant or the state.
A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma passed the verdict on an appeal filed by one Nagarajan, challenging an order of Madurai bench of the Madras High Court which convicted him for abetment of suicide of a woman and sentenced him to five-years rigorous imprisonment.
He was also convicted of charges of outraging the modesty and house trespass.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Sistema TMS para empresas de logística
Sistema TMS embarcador
Saiba Mais
Undo
The top court noted that the trial court acquitted him of the charges of Section 306 of IPC for abetment of suicide and convicted him only for outraging the modesty of the woman and house trespass.
Nagarajan appealed in the high court, which upheld the trial court's order of conviction but suo motu initiated proceedings for his conviction under Section 306 of the IPC and convicted him.
Live Events
It came on record that no appeal was filed by the state, victim or complainant for enhancement of sentence or acquittal under section 306 of the IPC.
"An appeal filed by the accused/convict and in the absence of any appeal filed by the victim, complainant or the state, the high court cannot exercise suo motu revision either to enhance the sentence or to convict the appellant on any other charge," the bench said.
As a result, the bench set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 306 of IPC but confirmed his conviction for "outraging the modesty of woman" and "house trespass".
"The appellant is directed to undergo the sentence and to pay the fine as imposed by the sessions court," it held.
The top court noted that the sentences were ordered to run concurrently by the high court.
"Thus, a conviction awarded for offences under Sections 354 and 448 of IPC has also resulted in a conviction under Section 306 of IPC and an enhanced sentence, that too, in an appeal filed by none other than the appellant," it said.
According to the bench "the rationale of the above can be explained in simple language by stating that no appellant by filing an appeal can be worse-off than what he was".
"That is exactly what we are seeking to reiterate in our judgment having regard to the facts of the present case."
Justice Nagarathna, who authored the verdict, said for exercising powers of the appellate court for enhancement of sentence in an appeal filed either by the state or the complainant or the victim, CrPC provides that the appellate court can reverse the finding and sentence and acquit or discharge the accused, or order him to be re-tried by a court competent to try the offence, or alter the finding by maintaining the sentence, or with or without altering the finding, alter the nature or the extent, of the sentence so as to enhance or reduce the same.
"Thus, the power to enhance the sentence can be exercised by the appellate court only in an appeal filed by the state, victim or complainant, provided the accused has had an opportunity of showing cause against such enhancement," the court held.
The bench said that the trial court should also be very careful while passing an order of sentence which must be "concomitant" with the charges framed and the findings arrived at while arriving at a judgment of conviction.
Nagarajan had challenged the November 29, 2021 order of the high court.
He was accused of outraging the modesty of his neighbour by trespassing her house on July 11, 2003.
The woman died by suicide along with her infant, the very next day.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
14 minutes ago
- Time of India
Blood, bombs and a Nobel? Pakistan chokes on Trump nomination after US bombs Iran
What began as a bold diplomatic gesture, Pakistan recommending former US President Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize, has quickly turned into a political embarrassment. The move, announced Friday and formalised through a letter signed by Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar, cited Trump's self-proclaimed efforts in preventing escalation during the recent India-Pakistan standoff. But within hours, the US bombed three of Iran's key nuclear facilities- Fordo, Isfahan, and Natanz- in a joint operation with Israel. That single event has flipped the narrative and ignited widespread condemnation inside Pakistan. 'Afghan blood is on his hands' Critics point not just to Trump's recent actions but to his broader legacy of war and destabilization. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Join new Free to Play WWII MMO War Thunder War Thunder Play Now Undo 'How can a man with the blood of Afghans and Palestinians on his hands claim to be a peacemaker?' asked Maulana Fazlur Rehman , leader of the Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam (JUI-F), at a party event in Murree. He demanded the government withdraw Trump's nomination immediately. Fazl slammed Trump's history of supporting Israeli military operations across Palestine, Syria, Lebanon—and now Iran. 'Trump's claim of peace has proven to be false,' he said, adding that the nomination appeared to be driven by Pakistani leaders' enthusiasm over Trump's lunch meeting with Chief of Army Staff, Field Marshal Asim Munir. Live Events Political outrage mounts Voices from across Pakistan's political spectrum have joined the backlash. Former senator Mushahid Hussain said on X: 'Since Trump is no longer a potential peacemaker, but a leader who has willfully unleashed an illegal war, Pakistan government must now review, rescind and revoke his Nobel nomination!' He further accused Trump of being manipulated by 'Netanyahu and the Israeli war lobby,' and warned that the former US president had committed the 'biggest blunder of his presidency.' 'National embarrassment' Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) was among the first to formally condemn the US strikes, labeling them 'unprovoked' and expressing 'total support' for Iran's sovereignty. Raoof Hasan, head of PTI's political think-tank, called the Trump nomination a 'cause of unmitigated shame and embarrassment' and blasted the government for what he described as a misstep that undermines national legitimacy. Diplomats and Activists Speak Out The backlash extended beyond politicians. Former ambassador Maleeha Lodhi termed the decision 'unfortunate,' saying it failed to reflect public sentiment. Veteran politician Afrasiab Khattak described it as 'sycophancy,' unfit for responsible diplomacy. Jamaat-i-Islami chief Naeemur Rehman said the move 'undermines our national dignity,' while author Fatima Bhutto posed a pointed question on X: 'Will Pakistan withdraw its nomination for him to receive the Nobel Peace Prize?' A diplomatic blunder? The backlash highlights a deeper discomfort with aligning Pakistan's foreign policy narrative with a figure whose record includes drone strikes, Middle East escalation, and backing regimes accused of war crimes. As journalist Mariana Baabar noted, 'Today Pakistan does not look too good either,' sharing the official post announcing the nomination.
Time of India
14 minutes ago
- Time of India
Canada takes a page out of Trump's immigration playbook; announces policies to tighten borders
Canada has announced new legislation called the Strong Borders Act to give authorities more powers over its borders, security, and immigration systems. The Carney government said the measures will help 'protect the integrity of the system' and respond quickly to emergencies, security threats, and rising asylum claims. The new law allows authorities to cancel, suspend or change documents like visas, work permits, or travel authorizations if needed for the public interest. This can be done to respond to health or safety threats, misuse of programmes, or other emergencies. 'The new legislation does not grant the Government of Canada the authority to cancel asylum claims," the government said. Final decisions will be made by the Governor General and consider the impact on vulnerable people. The Strong Borders Act will also make information sharing between federal departments, provinces, and territories more effective. Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) will be able to share information such as status and documents with authorized departments and services. This will help authorities confirm identities, detect fraud, and support enforcement. All information sharing will still be subject to privacy laws. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Confidence packed. Wrinkles left behind. Philips Garment Steamers Book Now Undo To make the asylum process faster and more organized, the new rules will simplify online applications, making them the same across airports and inland offices. The Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) will only review claims from people physically present in Canada, and remove inactive claims quickly. The changes will also help minors and claimants unfamiliar with the process by providing representatives. (Join our ETNRI WhatsApp channel for all the latest updates) Two new ineligibility measures will take effect from June 3, 2025. The first applies to people making an asylum claim more than a year after arriving in Canada. The second applies to people entering from the United States between official crossings and making claims after 14 days. These claimants can still seek protection through a Pre‑Removal Risk Assessment, which ensures no one is returned to a country where they risk harm. Live Events You Might Also Like: Canada uncovers bribery and misconduct cases within immigration system Additional Border and Security Powers The Strong Borders Act will also expand the role of the Canadian Coast Guard to conduct security patrols, especially in remote Arctic waters. It allows the Coast Guard to collect, analyze, and share security information. The new rules also enable the RCMP to share information about registered sex offenders with authorities in Canada and the United States. Fighting Organized Crime and Fentanyl To fight organized crime and the spread of fentanyl, the Government will make it easier for authorities to control chemicals used in making illegal drugs. The Minister of Health can quickly ban such chemicals. New powers will also be added to the Criminal Code, the Customs Act, and other laws, allowing authorities to search mail and digital data, and obtain information from transporters and warehouses to aid investigations. The 'Supporting Authorized Access to Information Act' will require service providers to help authorities with access to data and intercepting information during investigations. You Might Also Like: Accessing federal benefits in Canada just got easier for newcomers Stopping Money Laundering The new measures will also update the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act. New penalties will apply for violations, and restrictions will be introduced for large cash and third‑party cash transactions. All businesses subject to the law must register with the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC). The law will also allow FINTRAC to share information with the Office of the Commissioner of Canada Elections, making it harder for money to move secretly within the country. The changes clarify how private institutions can share information with authorities and support the Integrated Money Laundering Intelligence Partnership between banks and enforcement agencies. The amendments will also add the Director of FINTRAC to the Financial Institutions Supervisory Committee (FISC), making it possible for the Director to share information with other members. You Might Also Like: Canada's population growth slows as immigration rules tighten These changes, the Government said, are 'to build a safer and more equitable Canada' while aligning its laws with modern needs and making sure privacy and Charter rights are respected.
The Wire
20 minutes ago
- The Wire
Why Indian Rivers Should Be Granted the Rights They Deserve
As North Eastern states experience disasters under flooding, rivers wreaking havoc, parts of the country also see an extreme season with the drying of its rivers having adversarial impact on soil, agriculture, and livelihoods of millions on depend upon it. Rivers and their critical vitality in shaping, managing and nurturing livelihoods have captured imagination of writers, artists, and scholars for centuries. In the ancient Hindu imagination, the Ganga is not a river. She is a mother. A bearer of life. A witness to history. For thousands of years, poets, priests, and pilgrims have also knelt at her banks, offering flowers and ashes alike. But in the courtroom, such reverence has not translated into responsibility. For Indian rivers today, personhood is poetry – but not yet law. And yet, the idea is not as far-fetched as it once seemed. If the river has a legal standing in a court of law In 2017, the Uttarakhand High Court declared the Ganga and Yamuna 'living entities' with the rights of a legal person. For a brief moment, the river had standing in a court of law. It could, in theory, sue a polluter, resist a dam, or demand its flow be restored. But the decision was swiftly stayed by the Supreme Court, citing practical difficulties: Who would represent the river? Who would be liable if the river 'committed' harm, like flooding? The Ganga returned to her pre-modern role: sacred but silent. Eight years later, in 2025, the waters are rising again – this time not just in volume, but in voice. Earlier this year, Rajya Sabha MP Satnam Singh Sandhu too introduced a bill proposing that Indian rivers be granted legal personhood through statute. In a nation where rivers are worshipped yet routinely strangled by concrete and sewage, the symbolism is powerful. But what matters more is the potential shift in power: from human dominion to ecological dignity. We have reached the limits of technocratic solutions to ecological collapse. India's flagship Namami Gange mission, launched with fanfare by the PM in 2014, has spent tens of thousands of crores and built miles of sewage infrastructure. Yet, the state of the Yamuna river – an important tributary of Ganga – in Delhi remains a chemical soup, where, fish die-offs are routine, and residents routinely gag at its banks. No amount of money can save a river if its right to flow, breathe, and exist is not recognized in law. In February, a Supreme Court-appointed committee reported that illegal embankments had been constructed through Kalesar National Park, obstructing the Yamuna's natural flow. On paper, it was a clear violation of forest and water laws. But the implications ran deeper. These embankments were not just environmental infractions – they were symbolic of a larger rupture: the quiet, everyday mutilation of riverine systems under the guise of 'development.' When a river's path is bent without its consent, it is not merely diverted; it is disenfranchised. Climate activist Ridhima Pandey, who first came into national consciousness for suing the government over climate inaction stood against the Kalasa-Banduri diversion project in Karnataka. Her protest was against a legal structure that treats rivers as passive infrastructure rather than living systems with embedded rights. Not isolated acts of environmental negligence but democratic failures in slow motion These are not isolated acts of environmental negligence. They are democratic failures in slow motion. Rivers may not cast votes, but they irrigate the very geographies our electoral maps are drawn on. To exclude them from legal personhood is to ignore that their depletion undermines the people who depend on them and the constitutional promises made to those people. Critics scoff. They warn of legal absurdities. Who defends the river in court? Can a river own property? The answer lies not in abandoning the project but in refining it. Guardianship models – where citizens, tribal councils, or environmental boards act as legal stewards – have worked elsewhere. In New Zealand, Maori iwi serve as co-guardians. India, too, can empower communities that have lived with and for rivers, rather than outsourcing custodianship to bureaucratic boards 500 kilometers away. It is a reckoning with the doctrine of human supremacy. Our legal system, forged in colonial logic, sees rivers as resources, not relationships. They are either dams to be built or drains to be dredged. But this worldview has failed us. Climate change is not just an engineering challenge; it is a civilisational crisis. The law must evolve. To grant rivers rights is not to anthropomorphise them, but to decolonise the way we see the world. This is critical for their being and sustenance through a realisation, recognition of rights that matter. The Ganga, after all, has outlived empires. She will likely outlast this one too. But what shape will she take – choked and canalised, or flowing freely as a subject of law and reverence? Personhood is not a silver bullet. But it is a beginning. A way of saying: the river has been speaking all along. It's time we learned how to listen. Deepanshu Mohan is a Professor of Economics, Dean, IDEAS, and Director, Centre for New Economics Studies. He is a Visiting Professor at London School of Economics and an Academic Visiting Fellow to AMES, University of Oxford.
