Nagarajan vs State of Tamil Nadu case gained attention as it addressed important questions about the extent of the High Court’s revisional powers, particularly when it acted suo motu to convict the accused under a more serious charge—Section 306 IPC—even though neither the State nor the complainant had challenged the acquittal. The matter was then brought before the Supreme Court. For a deeper understanding of important judicial decisions explore more Recent Judgements

Nagarajan vs State of Tamil Nadu: Introduction

Nagarajan vs State of Tamil Nadu revolves around a tragic incident where a woman and her infant daughter died by suicide following an alleged incident of trespass and attempted molestation by the appellant. Initially acquitted under Section 306 IPC by the Trial Court, the appellant’s conviction was later revised by the High Court which, exercising suo motu powers, convicted him of abetment of suicide.

Download Nagarajan vs State of Tamil Nadu PDF

The case at hand centres around the tragic suicide of a woman, Smt. Mariammal and her infant daughter, allegedly triggered by the Appellant’s act of trespass and attempted molestation. The case addressed important questions regarding the scope of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code and the High Court’s power of suo motu revision under Section 401 Criminal Procedure Code. The following are the brief facts of the case of Nagarajan vs State of Tamil Nadu -

Incident Leading to the Case

On the night of 11th July 2003, the appellant, who was a neighbour of the deceased woman Smt. Mariammal, unlawfully entered her house. He hugged her and attempted to outrage her modesty. The incident was interrupted by the deceased’s mother-in-law, who scolded the appellant, causing him to flee.

Discovery of the Suicide

On the next morning, 12th July 2003, around 5:00 A.M., the mother-in-law noticed that Mariammal and her 1.5-year-old infant were missing. It was later discovered that Mariammal had gone to her elder daughter’s school in an attempt to bring her home but the staff declined due to the warden’s absence.

Subsequently, Mariammal took her infant to a nearby field and committed suicide by consuming oleander seeds (a poisonous substance) which she also administered to her child. A passerby grazing cattle found them unconscious and alerted the village watchman. The child was found alive but was later declared dead at the hospital.

Registration of FIR and Charges

Based on the complaint from the village watchman an FIR was registered at the Kannivadi Police Station under Section 306 IPC. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the Appellant under the same section on 30th October 2003. The case was taken up as Sessions Case before the Mahila Fast Track Court, Dindigul.

Trial Court Proceedings

During the trial, the charges were altered to Section 354 IPC and Section 448 IPC. On 29th May 2015, the Trial Court acquitted the Appellant of the charge under Section 306 IPC and noted that his conduct did not amount to instigating the deceased to commit suicide.

However, the Appellant was convicted under Section 354 and Section 448 of Indian Penal Code (Now Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023). He was sentenced to:

• 3 years and 1 month of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 25,000 (with three months’ default sentence) under Section 354 IPC
• 3 months simple imprisonment under Section 448 IPC.

Appeal and Suo Motu Revision by High Court

Aggrieved by the conviction, the Appellant filed an appeal before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. The High Court of Madras noted the lack of a State appeal against the Section 306 IPC acquittal and felt that the evidence had not been properly appreciated.

Accordingly, on 8th June 2015, the Madras High Court exercised suo motu powers under Section 401 of Criminal Procedure Code and registered a Criminal Revision Case. It also appointed an Amicus Curiae to examine the findings of the Trial Court.

High Court Judgment

On 29th November 2021, the Madras High Court:

• Dismissed the criminal appeal of the Appellant
• Allowed the suo motu revision
• Convicted the Appellant under Section 306 and Section 448 IPC.

The appellant was sentenced to:

• 5 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000 (with three months’ default imprisonment) under Section 306 IPC
• 3 months of simple imprisonment under Section 448 IPC.

The Madras High Court concluded that the conduct of the Appellant had seriously impacted the dignity and mental state of the deceased which amounted to abetment of suicide.

Appeal Before the Supreme Court

Aggrieved by the order of the Madras High Court, the Appellant approached the Supreme Court by filing Criminal Appeals. The Appellant challenged the decision of the High Court of Madras.

Nagarajan vs State of Tamil Nadu: Issues Addressed

The following questions were addressed in the case of Nagarajan vs State of Tamil Nadu -

• Whether the High Court can enhance the sentence in an appeal filed by the accused under Section 386 of Criminal Procedure Code?
• The primary issue in this case was whether, in an appeal filed only by the accused against his conviction and sentence, the High Court has the power to enhance the sentence under Section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973.
• Whether the High Court can convict the accused on an additional charge (Section 306 IPC) in the absence of an appeal or revision by the State or complainant?
• The Supreme Court in Nagarajan vs State of Tamil Nadu examined if the High Court, while hearing the accused’s appeal, could convict him under an additional provision (abetment of suicide) despite the Trial Court’s acquittal and no challenge by the State.
• Can the High Court exercise revisional powers suo motu in an appeal filed by the accused?
• The Court addressed whether the High Court could invoke its revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 of Criminal Procedure Code when no appeal or revision was filed by the prosecution or victim and whether such power can be used to increase the punishment or add new convictions.

Nagarajan vs State of Tamil Nadu: Legal Provisions

In the Nagarajan vs State of Tamil Nadu Section 386 of Criminal Procedure Code played a significant role. The following is the analysis of this provision -

Section 386 of Criminal Procedure Code

Section 386 of Criminal Procedure Code (Now Section 427 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) empowers the appellate court to alter the sentence in an appeal from a conviction, but prohibits enhancing the sentence when the appeal is filed by the accused. The Court in Nagarajan vs State of Tamil Nadu relied on this provision to hold that when the accused appeals against conviction and sentence, the appellate court cannot increase the sentence.

Section 401 of Criminal Procedure Code

Section 401 (Now Section 442 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) grants revisional powers to the High Court to call for records and revise decisions but with limitations on prejudicing the accused and prohibiting conversion of acquittals into convictions.

Nagarajan vs State of Tamil Nadu: Judgment and Impact

In Nagarajan vs State of Tamil Nadu, the 2-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma allowed the appeal part in appeal and ruled that in an appeal filed by the accused against his conviction and sentence, the High Court cannot suo motu exercise its revisional jurisdiction to enhance the sentence or convict the appellant on an additional charge, such as under Section 306 IPC, particularly when no appeal or revision has been filed by the State, complainant or victim.

The Court in Nagarajan vs State of Tamil Nadu highlighted that under Section 386(b)(iii) of Criminal Procedure Code while the appellate court may alter the nature or extent of the sentence in an appeal from a conviction, it cannot enhance the sentence. It further explained that Section 401(3) of CrPC prohibits the High Court from converting an acquittal into a conviction in a revision proceeding. This bar also implicitly applies to enhancing sentences in such cases.

The Court in Nagarajan vs State of Tamil Nadu invoked the principle of “no reformatio in peius” which means an appellant should not be placed in a worse position as a result of filing an appeal. Thus, enhancing the sentence or convicting on additional charges in the accused's own appeal violates natural justice and fairness.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court:

• Set aside the High Court’s conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 306 IPC.
• Restored the Trial Court’s judgment, which had acquitted the appellant under Section 306 but convicted him under Sections 354 and 448 IPC.
• Directed the appellant to serve the sentence as originally imposed by the Sessions Court.
• Instructed the appellant to surrender if the sentence imposed by the Trial Court has not yet been fully served. In case of failure, police authorities were directed to ensure his arrest and imprisonment.

Thus, in Nagarajan vs State of Tamil Nadu the appeal was allowed in part and upheld the principles of fair procedure and appellate jurisdiction limits.

Conclusion

In Nagarajan vs State of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court on 4th June 2025 set aside the High Court's conviction under Section 306 IPC and reaffirmed the verdict of the Trial Court. It reinforced that in an appeal filed solely by the accused, the appellate court cannot enhance the sentence or add new convictions in the absence of a challenge by the State. The Judgement was delivered by Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma.