Right to Appeal Against Conviction Is a Constitutional Right, Not Just Statutory.

The Supreme Court has held that an accused person's right to appeal against a conviction is not merely a statutory entitlement but also a constitutional right, reaffirming the fundamental nature of appellate remedies in criminal jurisprudence.

A bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, while delivering its verdict in Nagarajan v. State of Tamil Nadu strongly deprecated the suo motu enhancement of sentence by the High Court while adjudicating a convict’s own appeal against conviction.

“The 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 Court observed.

Constitutional Backing for Right to Appeal

The Court emphasized that an accused has a dual right in appealing against a conviction:

• To challenge the merits of the conviction and sentence

• To question procedural flaws or improprieties that may have occurred during the trial

This approach ensures that the appellate process is not merely a formality but a meaningful opportunity to correct judicial errors, whether substantive or procedural.

“It is not only a statutory right but also a constitutional safeguard, linked closely to the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution,” the bench stated.

Suo Motu Revision to Enhance Sentence Unlawful

The judgment came while setting aside an order of the Madras High Court, which had enhanced the sentence of the appellant suo motu, despite the State or the complainant not filing any appeal or revision.

Reiterating principles laid down under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Supreme Court held that a High Court cannot invoke revisional powers on its own to enhance punishment while deciding an appeal filed by the convict.

“The High Court, while exercising appellate jurisdiction, cannot convert itself into a revisional court,” the Court clarified, adding that this would violate procedural fairness and upset the balance of adversarial litigation.

Its Impact on Procedural Law

This ruling will likely have significant implications on appellate criminal practice, reinforcing that:

• Accused persons must be guaranteed a full and fair appellate review.

• Suo motu revisional interventions by High Courts must stay within statutory bounds.

• Procedural safeguards are essential to ensure justice isn’t compromised under the guise of judicial discretion.