VICTIM RIGHTS | ENHANCEMENT OF SENTENCE | SECTION 413 BNSS | SECTION 418 BNSS | CRIMINAL APPEAL | PATNA HIGH COURT

The Accused Was Convicted but the Sentence Is Too Low - Can the Victim Independently Appeal Only for Enhancement of Sentence?

By Advocate Ankit Kumar Singh

Legally reviewed and updated: 6 September 2026

Supreme Court of India | Patna High Court | Allahabad High Court at Prayagraj | Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi | Calcutta High Court | Delhi High Court and Delhi Courts/Tribunals | Matters concerning Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh | Multiple District Courts

Direct Answer

No. If the accused has been convicted and the victim's only grievance is that the sentence is too low, the victim cannot ordinarily maintain an independent statutory appeal solely for enhancement of sentence under Section 413 BNSS.

The victim's independent appellate right is limited to three situations:

1. acquittal of the accused;
2. conviction for a lesser offence; or
3. imposition of inadequate compensation.

The law deliberately does not include:

INADEQUATE SENTENCE.

The separate statutory route for challenging a sentence because it is too lenient is Section 418 BNSS, which empowers the State Government to direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal against the sentence on the ground of inadequacy.

Therefore:

VICTIM APPEAL UNDER SECTION 413 BNSS

is not the same as:

STATE APPEAL FOR ENHANCEMENT UNDER SECTION 418 BNSS.

Section 413 BNSS: What Can a Victim Independently Appeal?

Section 413 BNSS continues the victim-appeal structure that earlier appeared in the proviso to Section 372 CrPC.

It gives the victim an independent appeal where the Trial Court:

• acquits the accused;
• convicts the accused for a lesser offence; or
• imposes inadequate compensation.

These categories matter because a right of appeal is created by statute.

The Court cannot add another appellate category merely because the victim has a legitimate grievance.

Section 418 BNSS: Who Can Appeal Because the Sentence Is Too Low?

Section 418 BNSS specifically deals with an appeal against inadequacy of sentence.

Subject to the statutory framework, the State Government may direct the Public Prosecutor to file the enhancement appeal.

Where the conviction results from investigation by an empowered Central agency under a Central enactment, the Central Government may also have the statutory role provided by Section 418.

Thus, the legislature has separated:

VICTIM APPEALS

from:

GOVERNMENT APPEALS AGAINST INADEQUATE SENTENCE.

Supreme Court: Parvinder Kansal Settled the Issue

The leading Supreme Court authority is Parvinder Kansal v. State of NCT of Delhi, Criminal Appeal No.555 of 2020, decided on 28 August 2020.

The appellant was the father of a murdered child.

The accused had been convicted of grave offences and sentenced to life imprisonment.

The victim's father wanted the sentence enhanced to death penalty.

He therefore filed a victim appeal under Section 372 CrPC.

The Supreme Court held that the appeal was not maintainable.

The reason was straightforward:

Section 372 gave the victim a right of appeal against:

• acquittal;
• lesser offence; or
• inadequate compensation.

It did not give the victim an appeal merely for inadequate sentence.

Patna High Court 2026: Anjali Kumari v. State of Bihar

Patna High Court reaffirmed the same position on 20 January 2026 in Anjali Kumari v. State of Bihar, Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.1724 of 2025.

The case arose from Digha P.S. Case No.39 of 2022 and a Special POCSO trial.

The accused was convicted under Section 363 IPC and sentenced to four years' rigorous imprisonment with fine.

The victim challenged the outcome and, among other things, argued for a more severe sentencing result.

Patna High Court reiterated that the victim's statutory right of appeal is limited to:

• acquittal;
• lesser offence; or
• inadequate compensation.

The Court specifically noted that inadequacy of sentence is dealt with through the State's enhancement provision.

Patna High Court Has Repeated This Rule Several Times

The 2026 judgment is consistent with earlier Patna High Court authority.

Sanjay Kumar @ Bhondu v. State of Bihar

In Criminal Appeal (DB) No.401 of 2021, decided on 23 August 2021, Patna High Court held that a victim has no independent right to appeal merely because the sentence is inadequate.

Rakesh Kumar Srivastava v. State of Bihar

The Division Bench again held in 2024 that the statutory enhancement appeal belongs to the State.

Om Prakash Giri v. State of Bihar

On 5 August 2024, Patna High Court reiterated that neither inadequate sentence nor merely granting Probation of Offenders Act relief creates a victim appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC.

The Most Important Distinction: Inadequate Sentence vs Lesser Offence

These concepts must not be mixed.

Situation A — Correct Offence, Sentence Allegedly Too Low

Suppose the Court convicts the accused for the offence the prosecution alleged.

But the victim believes:

4 YEARS SHOULD HAVE BEEN 7 YEARS.

That is:

INADEQUATE SENTENCE.

The victim cannot use Section 413 solely for this purpose.

Situation B — Convicted for a Lesser Offence

Suppose the victim contends that the evidence established a graver offence but the Trial Court convicted the accused only for a substantially lesser offence.

That can engage the express:

CONVICTING FOR A LESSER OFFENCE

limb of Section 413.

The appellate strategy is therefore fundamentally different.

Inadequate Sentence vs Inadequate Compensation

This is another frequent source of confusion.

Complaint	Victim Appeal Under Section 413?
Accused acquitted	Yes, subject to applicable procedural requirements
Convicted for lesser offence	Yes
Compensation inadequate	Yes
Imprisonment term too short	No independent Section 413 appeal solely on this ground
Fine too low as part of sentence	Requires careful distinction between sentencing and compensation; do not assume Section 413 applies
Sentence below mandatory statutory minimum	Potential illegality requiring separate analysis; not merely a discretionary inadequate-sentence complaint

What If the Trial Court Imposed Less Than the Mandatory Minimum?

That situation requires separate analysis.

There is a difference between:

THE JUDGE EXERCISED SENTENCING DISCRETION AND I THINK THE SENTENCE IS TOO LENIENT

and:

THE SENTENCE ITSELF VIOLATES A MANDATORY STATUTORY REQUIREMENT.

For example, if a statute legally requires a minimum punishment and the Court imposes a sentence below that minimum without lawful authority, the issue may involve:

• legality of sentence;
• correct application of the penal statute;
• State appeal;
• revisional jurisdiction; or
• another legally maintainable corrective proceeding.

It should not be pleaded merely as:

“THE VICTIM WANTS MORE PUNISHMENT.”

What Should the Victim Do If the Sentence Appears Grossly Inadequate?

The first practical route is to prepare a reasoned request asking the competent State/prosecution authorities to consider an enhancement appeal under Section 418 BNSS.

The representation should identify:

1. FIR and trial details;
2. offence of conviction;
3. statutory minimum and maximum punishment;
4. sentence actually imposed;
5. aggravating factors found by the Trial Court;
6. relevant victim impact;
7. criminal antecedents, if legally proved/relevant;
8. whether the sentencing order considered aggravating and mitigating factors;
9. specific legal error or alleged disproportionality;
10. why State appellate intervention is sought.

The victim should attach the judgment of conviction and complete order on sentence.

Can the Victim Force the State to File an Enhancement Appeal?

The victim should not assume that making a representation automatically compels the State to appeal.

The statutory decision under Section 418 belongs to the competent Government/prosecution framework.

A responsible request should therefore be based upon:

• legal sentencing error;
• manifest disproportionality;
• ignored statutory minimum;
• serious unconsidered aggravating factors; or
• another legally relevant sentencing defect.

A representation based only on anger or dissatisfaction is unlikely to be an adequate legal foundation.

What Happens if the State Files an Enhancement Appeal?

The convict receives important procedural protection.

Section 418(3) BNSS provides that the appellate Court cannot enhance the sentence without giving the accused a reasonable opportunity to show cause against enhancement.

While showing cause, the accused may plead:

• that the sentence should not be enhanced;
• that the sentence should actually be reduced; or
• that he should be acquitted.

Therefore, a sentence-enhancement appeal is not a one-way proceeding.

The entire appellate strategy must account for the convict's statutory right to respond.

Can the Victim Participate if the State Files the Enhancement Appeal?

Yes, subject to the Court's regulation of victim participation.

Supreme Court victim-right jurisprudence recognises that the victim has an independent and meaningful interest in criminal proceedings.

The victim may therefore engage counsel and seek to assist the prosecution in the manner permitted by the Court.

However:

PARTICIPATION

is different from:

HAVING AN INDEPENDENT SECTION 413 APPEAL FOR ENHANCEMENT.

The latter is what the statute does not provide.

Can a Criminal Revision Be Filed Instead?

This question requires careful case-specific analysis.

A revision is not simply an appeal with a different label.

Under the current BNSS:

• Section 438 concerns calling for records in revision;
• Section 442 concerns the High Court's revisional powers.

Revisional jurisdiction examines matters such as:

• correctness;
• legality;
• propriety of a finding, sentence or order; and
• regularity of proceedings.

Whether a victim revision seeking enhancement is maintainable and whether interference is warranted depend upon:

• which Court passed the sentence;
• whether there was a first appeal;
• whether the victim had another statutory appeal on the particular issue;
• whether the complaint concerns illegality or merely sentencing discretion;
• the precise revisional provision applicable; and
• the procedural history.

Patna High Court 2025: Victim's Revision Was Considered Separately

A useful procedural example is Anupama Kumari @ Geeta Kumari @ Anupama Sinha v. State of Bihar, considered with Criminal Revision No.551 of 2024.

The victim's Criminal Revision No.561 of 2024 sought enhancement of a sentence that had been reduced by the first appellate Court from three years' rigorous imprisonment to two years.

Patna High Court examined the sentencing issue but ultimately found no reason to interfere and dismissed the victim's revision.

This illustrates two important points:

FIRST:

revision is procedurally distinct from the victim appeal under Section 413.

SECOND:

the existence of revisional jurisdiction does not mean enhancement is automatic merely because the victim considers the sentence lenient.

Can Patna High Court Suo Motu Enhance a Grossly Inadequate Sentence?

High Courts possess revisional supervisory powers and Supreme Court precedent recognises suo motu revision concerning a grossly inadequate sentence in an appropriate proceeding.

But this should be carefully understood.

The power belongs to:

THE HIGH COURT.

It does not create:

AN INDEPENDENT VICTIM APPEAL THAT THE STATUTE HAS WITHHELD.

Further, any enhancement prejudicial to the convict requires proper procedural safeguards and an opportunity of hearing.

Can the High Court Increase the Sentence in the Convict's Own Appeal?

A recent Supreme Court decision provides an important safeguard.

In Sachin v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 INSC 716, the accused himself had appealed against conviction.

The Supreme Court held that while dealing with the convict's appeal, the High Court could not simply make the appellant worse off by using that appeal to enhance the sentence while maintaining the conviction.

Therefore, if:

THE STATE HAS NOT FILED A PROPER ENHANCEMENT APPEAL

and:

ONLY THE CONVICT'S APPEAL IS BEFORE THE HIGH COURT,

the victim should not assume that the High Court can simply increase punishment inside the convict's appeal because victim counsel requests it.

What If the Victim Also Says the Accused Was Convicted for the Wrong, Lesser Offence?

That changes the legal analysis.

Suppose the victim's grievance is:

“The Trial Court should have convicted the accused for the graver offence, but convicted him for a lesser offence.”

That grievance falls within an express limb of Section 413 BNSS.

If the appellate Court ultimately accepts the challenge to the lesser-offence conviction, sentencing consequences may follow from the altered finding according to law.

This is fundamentally different from:

“THE CONVICTION SECTION IS CORRECT; JUST INCREASE THE TERM OF IMPRISONMENT.”

What If Compensation Is Too Low as Well?

Section 413 expressly recognises a victim appeal against inadequate compensation.

Therefore a case may involve two separate complaints:

1. the imprisonment is allegedly inadequate; and

2. compensation is allegedly inadequate.

The first does not independently support a Section 413 appeal solely for enhancement of imprisonment.

The second can fall within the express victim-appeal provision.

The prayer must therefore be drafted precisely rather than treating “sentence”, “fine” and “compensation” as interchangeable concepts.

What Documents Should the Victim Give the Lawyer?

Document	Why It Matters
FIR	Identifies prosecution and allegations
Charge-sheet	Shows offences sent for trial
Charge order	Shows offences actually tried
Judgment of conviction	Shows findings and offence of conviction
Order on sentence	Essential for enhancement analysis
Victim compensation order	Separates compensation issue from sentence issue
Statutory punishment provision	Shows minimum and maximum punishment
Previous bail orders	May contain relevant conduct findings
Antecedent material	Relevant only if legally admissible and properly established
Victim-impact / medical material	May support sentencing or compensation representation
State prosecution correspondence	Relevant if enhancement request has already been made

Decision Tree: Which Remedy Actually Applies?

TRIAL COURT CONVICTS ACCUSED
        ↓

WHAT IS THE VICTIM'S REAL GRIEVANCE?

        ↓

1. ACCUSED WAS ACQUITTED?
        → SECTION 413 VICTIM APPEAL MAY LIE

2. ACCUSED CONVICTED FOR LESSER OFFENCE?
        → SECTION 413 VICTIM APPEAL MAY LIE

3. COMPENSATION IS INADEQUATE?
        → SECTION 413 VICTIM APPEAL MAY LIE

4. CORRECT OFFENCE BUT IMPRISONMENT IS TOO LOW?
        → NO INDEPENDENT VICTIM APPEAL SOLELY FOR ENHANCEMENT
        → CONSIDER STATE ENHANCEMENT ROUTE UNDER SECTION 418

5. SENTENCE IS ILLEGAL / BELOW MANDATORY MINIMUM?
        → SEPARATE LEGALITY / APPELLATE / REVISION ANALYSIS

6. FIRST APPELLATE COURT REDUCED SENTENCE?
        → EXAMINE STATE APPEAL / REVISION / PROCEDURAL HISTORY

7. CONVICT HAS FILED HIS OWN APPEAL?
        → VICTIM MAY PARTICIPATE WHERE PERMITTED
        → DO NOT ASSUME CONVICT'S OWN APPEAL CAN SIMPLY BE USED TO ENHANCE SENTENCE

Frequently Asked Questions

The accused was convicted, but the punishment is too low. Can I independently appeal?

Not solely on the ground of inadequate sentence under Section 413 BNSS. The statutory sentence-enhancement appeal belongs to the State under Section 418 BNSS.

What are the three grounds for a victim's independent appeal?

Acquittal, conviction for a lesser offence and inadequate compensation.

What did Patna High Court hold in Anjali Kumari?

On 20 January 2026, Patna High Court reiterated that a victim cannot independently maintain an appeal merely because the sentence imposed is inadequate.

What did the Supreme Court hold in Parvinder Kansal?

The Supreme Court held that Section 372 CrPC did not permit the victim's father to appeal solely for enhancement of sentence; that remedy belonged to the State under Section 377 CrPC.

Has the rule changed under BNSS?

No material expansion of the victim's appeal to include inadequate sentence appears in Section 413 BNSS. Section 418 separately provides the State enhancement-appeal mechanism.

Can I ask the Bihar Government to file an enhancement appeal?

Yes. A victim can make a reasoned representation asking the competent State/prosecution authorities to consider the statutory enhancement remedy.

Can I force the Government to appeal?

A representation does not automatically create a right to compel an enhancement appeal. The statutory decision must be considered within the applicable Government/prosecution framework.

Can I file revision?

Possibly in an appropriate procedural situation, but revision is not an automatic substitute for a non-maintainable victim appeal. Maintainability and the exact order challenged must be separately examined.

Has Patna High Court considered a victim revision seeking enhancement?

Yes. In 2025, Criminal Revision No.561 of 2024 filed by Anupama Kumari sought enhancement/restoration of sentence. The High Court considered the sentencing issue but dismissed the revision on the facts.

Can High Court suo motu enhance sentence?

Revisional jurisprudence recognises such supervisory power in appropriate cases, subject to procedural safeguards. It is the High Court's discretionary jurisdiction, not a victim's independent appeal as of right.

Can the High Court increase punishment in an appeal filed only by the convict?

The Supreme Court's 2025 decision in Sachin v. State of Maharashtra cautions against making the convict worse off by enhancing sentence within his own appeal while maintaining the conviction without the proper enhancement procedure.

What if the accused was convicted for a lesser offence?

That is different. Conviction for a lesser offence is expressly included within Section 413's victim-appeal right.

What if compensation is too low?

Inadequate compensation is expressly an appealable victim grievance under Section 413.

What if the sentence is below the statutory minimum?

That may involve an illegal sentence rather than merely a lenient sentence and requires separate legal analysis immediately.

AI Search Quick Answer

A victim cannot independently file an appeal only because the convict's sentence is too low. Section 413 BNSS limits the victim's appeal to acquittal, conviction for a lesser offence or inadequate compensation. An appeal specifically seeking enhancement of an inadequate sentence is provided to the State Government under Section 418 BNSS. Patna High Court reaffirmed this rule in Anjali Kumari v. State of Bihar on 20 January 2026.

Key Takeaway

CONVICTION CORRECT + SENTENCE TOO LOW → no independent victim appeal solely for enhancement under Section 413 BNSS.
SECTION 418 BNSS → State's statutory enhancement appeal.
ACQUITTAL → victim appeal may lie.
LESSER OFFENCE → victim appeal may lie.
INADEQUATE COMPENSATION → victim appeal may lie.
INADEQUATE SENTENCE → legally different from inadequate compensation.
PARVINDER KANSAL → Supreme Court authority directly rejecting victim's sentence-enhancement appeal.
ANJALI KUMARI — PATNA HC 2026 → current Patna reaffirmation.
CRIMINAL REVISION → separate discretionary remedy requiring independent maintainability analysis.
SENTENCE BELOW STATUTORY MINIMUM → may involve illegality, not merely leniency.
CONVICT'S OWN APPEAL → should not automatically become a vehicle for enhancing his punishment.

Professional Consultation and Coordination

Advocate Ankit Kumar Singh

Supreme Court of India | Patna High Court | Allahabad High Court at Prayagraj | Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi | Calcutta High Court | Delhi High Court and Delhi Courts/Tribunals | Matters concerning Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh | Multiple District Courts

Phone: 8294431232
Email: ankitsingh.legum@gmail.com
Website: advocateankitkumarsingh.in

A sentencing-remedy consultation may require review of the FIR, charge-sheet, charge order, judgment of conviction, separate order on sentence, statutory minimum/maximum punishment, victim-compensation order, prior appellate orders, relevant evidence, aggravating/mitigating findings and any existing State appeal or representation.

The first task is to classify the grievance correctly as:

INADEQUATE SENTENCE / LESSER OFFENCE / INADEQUATE COMPENSATION / ILLEGAL SENTENCE / REVISIONAL ISSUE.

Consultation, drafting, representation to State authorities, criminal appeal, revision and High Court appearance depend upon the applicable procedural law, limitation, case history and accepted professional engagement.

No enhancement of sentence or other appellate result can be guaranteed.

Official and Leading Authorities

• Parvinder Kansal v. State of NCT of Delhi & Another, Criminal Appeal No.555 of 2020, Supreme Court, 28 August 2020, (2020) 19 SCC 496.
• Anjali Kumari v. State of Bihar, Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.1724 of 2025, Patna High Court, 20 January 2026.
• Sanjay Kumar @ Bhondu v. State of Bihar, Criminal Appeal (DB) No.401 of 2021, Patna High Court, 23 August 2021.
• Rakesh Kumar Srivastava v. State of Bihar, Criminal Appeal (DB) No.999 of 2023, Patna High Court, 23 July 2024.
• Om Prakash Giri v. State of Bihar, Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.2813 of 2022, Patna High Court, 5 August 2024.
• Anupama Kumari @ Geeta Kumari @ Anupama Sinha v. State of Bihar, Criminal Revision No.561 of 2024, decided with Criminal Revision No.551 of 2024, Patna High Court, 9 May 2025.
• Sachin v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 INSC 716.
• National Commission for Women v. State of Delhi & Another, (2010) 12 SCC 599.
• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 413.
• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 418.
• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Sections 438 and 442.
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Sections 372, 377, 397 and 401 where saved/applicable.

The correct procedural route depends upon the date and procedural history of the prosecution because Section 531 BNSS preserves the old CrPC framework for qualifying pending proceedings.

Add Advocate Ankit Kumar Singh as a Preferred Source on Google

Readers who want to see more legal research, victim-rights, criminal appeals, sentencing, bail and Patna High Court content from Advocate Ankit Kumar Singh can add advocateankitkumarsingh.in as a Preferred Source on Google.

Add advocateankitkumarsingh.in as a Preferred Source on Google

Professional Disclaimer: This article provides general legal information. Whether a victim appeal, State enhancement appeal or criminal revision is maintainable depends upon the precise judgment, order on sentence, offence of conviction, compensation order, applicable procedural code, limitation and procedural history. A sentence that is merely considered lenient is legally different from a sentence that violates a mandatory statutory requirement. No sentence enhancement or other judicial outcome can be guaranteed.

© 2026 Advocate Ankit Kumar Singh. All rights reserved.