Most criminal appeals travel in one direction: the convict challenges the conviction or seeks a lighter sentence. But sentencing errors cut both ways, and the law provides a corrective for the other direction too. Section 418 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — the successor to Section 377 of the CrPC — permits an appeal against a sentence on the ground of inadequacy. This explainer covers who may file such an appeal, where it goes, and what the convict can argue once enhancement is on the table.
The provision in outline
Section 418 BNSS empowers the State Government, in any case of conviction on a trial held by any court other than a High Court, to direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal against the sentence on the ground of its inadequacy. Where the offence was investigated by a central investigating agency, the power belongs to the Central Government. The appeal lies to the Sessions Court or the High Court depending on which court passed the sentence, mirroring the ordinary appellate hierarchy.
The convict’s shield — and sword
The section builds in two protections for the person facing enhancement. First, no sentence can be enhanced unless the convict has had a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the enhancement. Second — and this is the feature practitioners most often overlook — while showing cause, the convict may plead for acquittal or for a reduction of the sentence. An inadequacy appeal therefore reopens the whole sentencing question and even the conviction itself from the convict’s side. The State cannot use the appeal as a one-way ratchet; filing it exposes the prosecution to the possibility that the appellate court, re-examining the record, acquits or reduces instead of enhancing.
State appeal against sentence for inadequacy; opportunity to show cause; convict may plead for acquittal or reduction.
The same architecture carried forward in the 2023 Sanhita, alongside Section 419 (appeals against acquittal) in the new appellate chapter.
How inadequacy is judged
Sentencing in India is discretionary within statutory limits, so an inadequacy appeal does not succeed merely because a heavier sentence was possible. Appellate courts ask whether the sentence is disproportionate to the gravity of the offence and the manner of its commission — whether the trial court’s leniency rests on irrelevant considerations, ignores statutory minimums, or fails to reflect aggravating circumstances established on the record. Where a statute prescribes a minimum sentence, imposing less than the minimum without lawful justification is the clearest case for interference. Where the sentence falls within the permissible band, the appellant must show that the discretion was exercised perversely, not merely differently than another judge might have.
Grounds that typically sustain an inadequacy appeal:
Sentence below a mandatory statutory minimum without recorded justification.
Leniency founded on irrelevant considerations, ignoring aggravating facts proved at trial.
Manifest disproportion between the crime’s gravity and the punishment imposed.
Fine substituted where the statute contemplates imprisonment, draining the deterrent purpose.
Routes compared: appeal, victim’s appeal, revision
Three routes can bring a lenient outcome before a higher court, and they are not interchangeable. The Section 418 inadequacy appeal is the State’s route, aimed squarely at the quantum of sentence. The victim’s appeal under the proviso to Section 413 BNSS covers acquittals, convictions for lesser offences and inadequate compensation — but not the bare leniency of a sentence. The revisional jurisdiction of the Sessions Court and High Court polices legality and propriety more broadly and can result in enhancement, but only after hearing the convict, and revision is discretionary supervision rather than a right of appeal. Choosing the correct route at the outset avoids a maintainability battle that can consume the limitation period.
Practice pointer: convicts served with notice in an enhancement appeal should treat it as a full re-hearing opportunity. The response should both defend the trial court’s sentencing reasons and, where the record permits, attack the conviction itself — the statute expressly allows it, and appellate benches do act on it.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice or a solicitation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who can appeal against an inadequate sentence?
The State Government may direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal against a sentence on the ground of its inadequacy. Where the conviction arises from a case investigated by a central agency, the direction comes from the Central Government. The provision is a government prerogative: a private complainant or victim cannot file an inadequacy appeal under this section.
Can the victim appeal a lenient sentence?
The victim’s statutory right of appeal under the BNSS covers acquittal, conviction for a lesser offence, and inadequate compensation — not inadequacy of the sentence itself. A victim aggrieved solely by leniency of sentence must persuade the State to appeal, or invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the higher court, which can examine legality but follows its own constraints.
What protection does the convict have in an enhancement appeal?
The convict must be given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the enhancement. Crucially, while showing cause, the convict may plead for acquittal or for reduction of the sentence — the enhancement appeal reopens the matter in the convict’s favour as well, so the State takes a litigation risk in filing it.
Can a court enhance a sentence without an appeal by the State?
The High Court’s revisional jurisdiction permits examination of the propriety of a sentence, and enhancement is possible in revision, but never without giving the convict an opportunity of being heard. What no court will do is enhance a sentence behind the convict’s back: the opportunity to show cause is the constant across every route.