The Supreme Court has held that an accused cannot file a statutory appeal under Section 374 CrPC (Section 415 BNSS) against a conviction recorded by a Sessions Court while reversing a trial court’s acquittal.
The bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale ruled that the only available statutory remedy in such circumstances is to invoke the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC (corresponding provisions under BNSS).
The dispute arose from matrimonial proceedings in which the appellant’s wife lodged a Zero FIR alleging cruelty, assault, and dowry harassment under Sections 498A and 323 IPC along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the husband and his parents.
Following a full-fledged trial, the Judicial Magistrate First Class acquitted all the accused on 20 December 2024, holding that the prosecution had failed to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt and that the evidence suffered from inconsistencies and lack of corroboration.
Buy Now: Supreme court Judgements E-Compilation – JUNE 2026
The complainant challenged the acquittal before the Sessions Court. On reappreciation of the evidence, the appellate court partly allowed the appeal by acquitting the parents but reversing the acquittal of the husband. The Sessions Court convicted him under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and imposed separate terms of imprisonment.
The husband thereafter approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court by filing an appeal under Section 374 CrPC (Section 415 BNSS). However, the High Court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable, holding that the statute does not provide for a second appeal against such an appellate conviction and that the appropriate remedy was a criminal revision.
Core Legal Issue
The Supreme Court examined the following substantial question of law:
Whether an appeal under Section 374 CrPC (Section 415 BNSS) is maintainable against a judgment of conviction recorded by a Sessions Court while exercising appellate jurisdiction and reversing an order of acquittal passed by a trial court?
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Court reiterated the settled principle that the right of appeal is purely a statutory right and cannot be inferred unless expressly conferred by legislation. It observed that Sections 372 and 374 CrPC clearly specify the circumstances in which appeals are maintainable, and courts cannot create additional appellate remedies through judicial interpretation.
The Bench emphasized that although a Sessions Court possesses the power to reverse an acquittal and convict an accused in an appeal filed by the victim or the State, such first-time appellate conviction does not automatically generate another statutory appeal before the High Court.
According to the Court, if Parliament intended to provide such an appellate remedy, it would have expressly incorporated it into the statutory scheme. Since no such provision exists either under the CrPC or BNSS, courts cannot expand the scope of appellate jurisdiction on equitable considerations.
Interpretation of “Convicted on a Trial Held By”
A major issue before the Court concerned the interpretation of the phrase “convicted on a trial held by” appearing in Section 374 CrPC.
The appellant argued that a conviction recorded by the Sessions Court after reversing an acquittal was still a conviction “on a trial” because it arose from the same criminal proceedings.
Rejecting this contention, the Supreme Court held that the statutory expression refers only to the court which actually conducted the trial from commencement to conclusion.
The Court explained that the words “held by” unmistakably refer to the court that presided over the trial proceedings themselves. Therefore, Section 374 contemplates appeals only from convictions delivered by the court that conducted the trial and not from convictions recorded by a court exercising appellate jurisdiction.
Distinction Between Trial and Appellate Jurisdiction
The Bench further clarified that although an appeal is legally regarded as a continuation of criminal proceedings, this doctrine does not erase the distinction between trial jurisdiction and appellate jurisdiction.
A trial court exercises original jurisdiction by recording evidence, framing charges, and delivering judgment. In contrast, an appellate court exercises a distinct appellate jurisdiction while reviewing the correctness of that judgment.
Therefore, a conviction recorded by an appellate court cannot be treated as a conviction “on a trial held by” that appellate court merely because the appeal forms part of the same proceedings.
Earlier High Court View Overruled
While deciding the issue, the Supreme Court expressly overruled the Himachal Pradesh High Court decision in Arun Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh, which had held that an appeal would be maintainable because appellate proceedings constitute a continuation of the trial.
The Supreme Court held that although the doctrine of continuation explains procedural continuity, it does not transform an appellate court into a trial court for the purposes of Section 374 CrPC.
Liberal Exercise of Revisional Jurisdiction Suggested
Recognising that an accused convicted for the first time by an appellate court does not enjoy the benefit of a statutory appeal, the Supreme Court nevertheless observed that such cases deserve careful scrutiny by High Courts while exercising revisional jurisdiction.
The Court stated that High Courts may adopt a more liberal approach in exercising revisional powers under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC, including using powers akin to those of an appellate court wherever the facts warrant, subject to the limitations governing revision proceedings.
Dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court conclusively held that no appeal under Section 374 CrPC or Section 415 BNSS is maintainable against a conviction recorded by a Sessions Court while reversing an acquittal passed by a trial court. The only statutory remedy available is a criminal revision under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC (or corresponding BNSS provisions). The Court did not decide the constitutional validity of Rule 48 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules, as that issue is already pending before the High Court. Liberty was granted to the appellant to file a criminal revision challenging the Sessions Court’s conviction.Â
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
