The Supreme Court today upheld the enhancement of the sentence from 12 years to 20 years in a gang rape case under Section 376D IPC, holding that a sentence below the statutory minimum cannot be allowed to sustain merely because the State failed to file an appeal.

The petitioners argued that they had themselves challenged the conviction before the High Court and therefore could not be made “worse off” in their own appeal. Reliance was placed on Sachin v. State of Maharashtra (2025) 9 SCC 507, where the Court had held that appellate courts ordinarily cannot enhance a sentence in an appeal filed by the accused.

However, the State argued that the present case was fundamentally different because the Trial Court had imposed only 12 years’ imprisonment despite Section 376D IPC prescribing a mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years after the amendment. It was submitted that this was not merely a case of “inadequate sentence,” but one involving a patent legal error.

Accepting the State’s submissions, the Bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma held that the High Court was justified in exercising suo motu revisional powers under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC to correct the illegality after issuing notice and hearing the accused on enhancement of sentence. The Court orally observed:

“What is the rule of law? The sentence imposed must be correct. This is not a case where the sentence awarded is merely inadequate. This is a case where the sentence imposed is below the minimum prescribed under the IPC.”

Distinguishing Sachin, the Court noted the submissions that: “The principle that an accused cannot be made worse off in his own appeal cannot be mechanically applied where the Trial Court itself imposed a sentence contrary to the statutory minimum.”

The Bench also observed that allowing such a sentence to continue would effectively amount to condoning an illegality: Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the petitions and upheld the enhanced sentence of 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment.

Appearances

For Petitioner- Ms. Manika Tripathy, AOR Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Adv. Ms. Malvika Singh, Adv.

For Respondent- Mr. Sameer Abhyankar, AOR Mr. Yashika Sharma, Adv. Mr. Aryan Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Yachina Sharma, Adv.