No Second Appeal Against First-Time Conviction by Sessions Court in Acquittal Appeal: Supreme Court
A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B. Varale held that Section 374 CrPC gives no appeal against a first-time conviction recorded by a Sessions Court reversing acquittal, leaving only revision.
The Supreme Court has held that an accused acquitted by a trial court and then convicted for the first time by a Sessions Court while hearing an appeal against that acquittal has no right of appeal to the High Court under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 415 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023).
The bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale answered the question in the negative. It ruled that the only remedy in such a situation is a revision under Sections 397 read with 401 CrPC (Sections 438 read with 442 BNSS). The Court dismissed the appeal of Vishnu Kumar Gupta but gave him liberty to file a revision against the Sessions Court's conviction order dated 27 May 2025.
How the dispute reached the Court
Gupta was the husband of the complainant, who lodged a Zero FIR on 19 January 2020 under Sections 498-A, 323, 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. It was registered as FIR No. 32 of 2020 at Police Station City Kotwali, Bhind, after transfer from Indore.
After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against Gupta, his father and his mother before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhind. By judgment dated 20 December 2024, the trial court acquitted all the accused, finding material inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony and a lack of corroborative evidence.
The complainant appealed to the Sessions Court under Section 378 CrPC (Section 419 BNSS). By judgment dated 27 May 2025 in Criminal Appeal No. 3/2025, the Seventh Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind, partly allowed the appeal. It affirmed the acquittal of Gupta's parents but reversed his acquittal, convicting him under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, with three years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 498-A and two years under Section 4, plus fines.
Gupta then filed an appeal before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior under Section 374 CrPC. By its judgment dated 11 July 2025 in Criminal Appeal No. 5615 of 2025, the High Court dismissed the appeal on maintainability, holding that only a revision lay, and that the appeal was also barred by Rule 48 of Chapter X of the Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules, 2008, since Gupta had not surrendered.
What the Court held on the main issue
The Court framed the question as whether an appeal under Section 374 CrPC (Section 415 BNSS) is maintainable against a conviction recorded by a Sessions Court exercising appellate jurisdiction and reversing a trial court acquittal.
The answer was no. The Court reasoned that the right of appeal is a creature of statute, recognised in Section 372 CrPC and Section 413 BNSS, and cannot be assumed or inferred without an express provision. Neither the CrPC nor the BNSS contemplates such an appeal.
The Court rejected the argument that a first-time conviction by the appellate court itself justifies recognising a further appeal. It said the question is not whether such an appeal is desirable, but whether the statute created one.
The reasoning on “on a trial held by”
The decision turned on the language of Section 374, which uses the phrase “on a trial held by”. Analysing the meaning of “trial” through decisions including State of Bihar v. Ram Naresh Pandey, V.C. Shukla v. State through CBI, Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and Jamin v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court concluded that a trial commences on the framing of charges and concludes with the judgment and sentence of the trial court.
The appellant had argued that “convicted on a trial”, not “in a trial”, showed a wider legislative intent covering a conviction founded upon a trial even when recorded by an appellate court. The Court did not accept this. It held that the expression refers to the court that itself conducted the trial. A Sessions Judge deciding an appeal under Section 378 exercises appellate jurisdiction, not trial jurisdiction.
The Court held that the doctrines that an appeal is a continuation of proceedings and that judgments merge do not convert an appellate court into a trial court. On this basis it examined the Himachal Pradesh High Court's decision in Arun Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh, which had held such an appeal maintainable, and overruled it, holding that it did not lay down correct law.
The revision remedy and Section 401(1)
Having closed the door on appeal, the Court examined whether revision is an adequate substitute. It accepted that appellate jurisdiction under Section 386 is substantive and comprehensive, permitting full re-appreciation of evidence, while revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 is supervisory and discretionary, ordinarily confined to jurisdictional error, illegality, procedural irregularity or perversity.
The Court found the appellant's concern that revision cannot equal appeal to be of substance, particularly where the accused has never had appellate scrutiny of his first conviction. It held that Section 401(1) allows the High Court, in revision, to exercise powers of a court of appeal, and that this is a calibrated safeguard against miscarriage of justice.
It directed that revisions arising from a first-time conviction by an appellate court stand on a distinct footing from revisions against concurrent convictions. In such cases the High Court should adopt a more liberal and searching approach and, where warranted, invoke Section 401(1) to exercise appellate powers, subject to settled principles. The Court noted that Section 401(3) bars converting an acquittal into a conviction but does not restrict the scope of examination of evidence.
Order
The Court declined to examine submissions on the constitutionality or vires of Rule 48 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules, 2008, as that issue was pending before the High Court, and expressed no opinion on it.
The appeal was dismissed. The Court granted liberty to Gupta, if he so desired, to file a revision against the dismissal of Criminal Appeal No. 3/2025 dated 27 May 2025 by the Seventh Additional Sessions Judge, District Bhind.