Karan Chettri & Anotherv.State of Sikkim

Illegal Sentence Below Statutory Minimum Can Be Corrected Suo Motu Despite Bar on Enhancement

Case Snapshot

Case Name: Karan Chettri & Another v. State of Sikkim

Citation: 2026 INSC 659

Bench: Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

Area of Law: Criminal Law, Sentencing, Gang Rape, Appellate Jurisdiction, Revisional Jurisdiction

Judgment in Brief

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by two convicts under Section 376D of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (gang rape), who had been sentenced to twelve years of rigorous imprisonment by the Sessions Court. The High Court, while affirming the conviction, enhanced the sentence to twenty years—the statutory minimum prescribed under Section 376D—after exercising its suo motu revisional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the bar under Section 386(b)(iii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which prohibits enhancement of sentence in an appeal filed by the accused, does not apply when the sentence imposed by the trial court is illegal and below the statutory minimum. Such a sentence is not merely inadequate but is rendered in derogation of the legal mandate and suffers from a jurisdictional infirmity. The appellate court's act of substituting the illegal sentence with the minimum prescribed by law is not an "enhancement" in exercise of appellate powers but a suo motu correction of an illegality to bring the sentence in conformity with the mandatory statutory requirement.

Relevant Facts

• The appellants were convicted by the Sessions Court under Sections 376D (gang rape), 376(2)(1) (rape by a person in authority), and 450 (house-trespass in preparation for committing offence) read with Section 34 of the IPC.

• The Sessions Court sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for twelve years with a fine of ₹10,000 each for the offence under Section 376D.

• The appellants filed appeals before the High Court challenging both conviction and sentence. The State did not file any appeal or revision seeking enhancement of sentence.

• The High Court, while partly allowing the appeals, set aside the conviction under Section 376(2)(1) but upheld the conviction under Section 376D and Section 450/34 IPC.

• The High Court enhanced the sentence under Section 376D from twelve years to twenty years—the statutory minimum—exercising its suo motu revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 CrPC.

• Aggrieved, the appellants approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court could not have enhanced the sentence in their own appeals as it violated Section 386(b)

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.