Appellate court may substitute a sentence below the statutory minimum despite the bar on enhancement.

The appellants were accused of raping a 52-year-old woman at her residence on January 10, 2021

The Sessions Court (Fast Track) convicted them under Sections 376D, 376(2)(n), and 450 read with Section 34 of the IPC

For the offence of gang rape under Section 376D, the Trial Court sentenced them to 12 years of rigorous imprisonment

The appellants challenged this conviction and sentence before the High Court of Sikkim. The High Court upheld the conviction under Section 376D but, noting that the statutory minimum for gang rape is 20 years, it exercised suo motu powers to enhance the sentence from 12 to 20 years

The appellants then approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court could not enhance the sentence in an appeal filed by the accused

1. Whether the High Court, while exercising appellate jurisdiction in an appeal filed by the convict, can suo motu enhance a sentence that is below the mandatory statutory minimum

2. Whether the restriction in Section 386(b)(iii) of the CrPC, which prohibits enhancement of sentence in a convict's appeal, applies when the original sentence is patently illegal

Section 376D of the IPC, which mandates a minimum punishment of 20 years for gang rape

Section 386(b)(iii) of the CrPC, which outlines the powers of the Appellate Court in an appeal from conviction

Section 401 of the CrPC regarding the High Court’s revisional powers

The court distinguished the precedent in Sachin v. State of Maharashtra (2025) 9 SCC 507, noting it does not apply to cases involving sentences below the statutory minimum

Sahab Singh v. State of Haryana (1990) 2 SCC 385 and Kumar Ghimirey v. State of Sikkim (2019) 6 SCC 166 regarding the necessity of notice before enhancement

The Court reasoned that while Section 386(b)(iii) of the CrPC generally prevents an appellate court from making an accused "worse off" in their own appeal, this protection assumes the original sentence was lawful

In this case, Section 376D IPC explicitly mandates a minimum of 20 years; thus, the Trial Court’s 12-year sentence was a "patent illegality" and a jurisdictional error

The Court clarified that correcting an illegal sentence to bring it in line with the mandatory statutory minimum does not constitute "enhancement" in the discretionary sense, but rather a suo motu horizontal correction of an error apparent on the face of the record

Since the High Court provided the appellants an opportunity to be heard before the correction, the principles of natural justice were satisfied

The Court emphasized that a procedural limitation cannot be used to perpetuate a sentence that the law expressly forbids

The court concluded that an accused has a right to challenge a conviction but no vested right to the continuance of an illegal sentence that falls below the minimum prescribed by Parliament

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the High Court's judgment