Vishnu Kumar Guptav.State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr

Supreme Court Holds No Appeal Lies Against First-Time Conviction by Sessions Court in Appeal

Case Snapshot

Case Name: Vishnu Kumar Gupta v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.

Citation: 2026 INSC 770

Bench: Justice Aravind Kumar & Justice Prasanna B. Varale

Date of Judgment: July 30, 2026

Area of Law: Criminal Procedure, Appeals, Revisional Jurisdiction

The Judgment in One Line

Appeal under Section 374 CrPC is not maintainable against a conviction recorded by Sessions Court while exercising appellate jurisdiction reversing an acquittal.

Why This Judgment Matters

This landmark judgment settles a long-standing procedural ambiguity in criminal law. The Supreme Court held that when a Sessions Court reverses an acquittal and convicts an accused for the first time, the accused cannot file a statutory appeal under Section 374 CrPC. The only remedy available is revision under Sections 397/401 CrPC. The Court overruled the contrary view of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Arun Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh. This decision has profound implications for criminal procedure, clarifying the distinction between appellate and revisional jurisdiction and ensuring that the statutory framework is strictly construed.

Background

The appellant, Vishnu Kumar Gupta, was married to respondent No. 2 in 2013. Following matrimonial disputes, a Zero FIR was registered against him and his parents under Sections 498-A, 323, 34 IPC and Sections 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After investigation, chargesheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhind.

The Trial Court acquitted all accused persons on December 20, 2024, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt. Aggrieved, the complainant filed an appeal under Section 419 BNSS (Section 378 CrPC) before the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court, on May 27, 2025, partly allowed the appeal—it affirmed the acquittal of the parents but convicted the appellant under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, sentencing him to 3 years and 2 years rigorous imprisonment respectively.

The appellant filed an appeal before the High Court under Section 415 BNSS (Section 374 CrPC). The High Court dismissed the appeal on the ground of maintainability, holding that only a revision petition is maintainable against a conviction recorded by a Sessions Court in appellate jurisdiction.

Issues Before the Court

1. Whether an appeal under Section 374 CrPC (Section 415 BNSS) is maintainable against a conviction recorded by a Sessions Court while exercising appellate jurisdiction.

2. Whether the expression "on a trial held by" in Section 374 CrPC includes a conviction recorded by an appellate court.

3. What is the proper remedy available to an accused convicted for the first time by a Sessions Court in an appeal against acquittal?

What Did the Supreme Court Hold?

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and held that no statutory appeal lies against a conviction recorded by a Sessions Court in appellate jurisdiction. The Court's reasoning was comprehensive and authoritative:

Right of Appeal is a Creature of Statute: The Court reiterated that the right of appeal is not an inherent right but a substantive statutory right. It exists only where expressly conferred by law. In the absence of an express provision, no appeal can be maintained. Section 372 CrPC (Section 413 BNSS) expressly prohibits appeals except as provided under the enactment.

Interpretation of "On a Trial Held By": The Court conducted a detailed textual analysis of Section 374 CrPC. The expression "on a trial held by" necessarily refers to the Court that has itself conducted the trial—commencing with framing of charges and culminating in conviction and sentence. The Sessions Court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, exercises appellate jurisdiction, not trial jurisdiction. The use of the preposition "on" does not expand the scope to include appellate convictions.

Trial Jurisdiction vs. Appellate Jurisdiction: The Court held that trial jurisdiction and appellate jurisdiction are fundamentally distinct. A Court conducting a trial exercises original jurisdiction; an appellate court exercises supervisory jurisdiction. The doctrine that an appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings does not obliterate this distinction. The doctrine of merger merely determines which judgment remains operative; it does not alter the character of the jurisdiction exercised.

Overruling Arun Sharma: The Court expressly overruled the Himachal Pradesh High Court's judgment in Arun Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh, which had held that a conviction by a Sessions Court in appeal is also "on a trial" and therefore appealable. The Court found this reasoning flawed—it incorrectly proceeded from the proposition that appeal is a continuation of trial to the conclusion that the appellate court exercises trial jurisdiction.

Proper Remedy is Revision: The Court held that the only remedy available to a person in such circumstances is to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC (Sections 438 and 442 BNSS). However, the Court clarified that Section 401(1) empowers the High Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, to exercise any of the powers conferred on a court of appeal. This allows a more searching examination than in ordinary revisions.

High Courts to Exercise Revision Liberally: The Court directed that revisions arising from first-time convictions by appellate courts stand on a distinct footing. High Courts should exercise their revisional jurisdiction more liberally in such cases, bearing in mind that the accused has not had the benefit of a statutory appeal. Section 401(1) can be invoked to exercise appellate powers, subject to settled principles.

Key Legal Principles

1. Right of appeal is a creature of statute — it exists only where expressly conferred; courts cannot create appellate remedies through interpretation.

2. "On a trial held by" means original trial court — the expression in Section 374 CrPC refers only to the court that conducted the trial, not an appellate court.

3. Trial jurisdiction is distinct from appellate jurisdiction — the doctrine that appeal is continuation of proceedings does not merge these distinct jurisdictions.

4. No second appeal in criminal cases — the CrPC/BNSS does not provide for a second appeal against conviction recorded by an appellate court.

5. Revision is the proper remedy — accused convicted for first time by appellate court must approach High Court in revision under Sections 397/401 CrPC.

6. Section 401(1) enables appellate powers in revision — revisional court may exercise appellate powers in appropriate cases, subject to limitations.

7. High Courts to adopt liberal approach — in first-time appellate convictions, revisions should be scrutinized more searchingly than ordinary revisions.

8. Section 401(3) limits conversion of acquittal to conviction — revisional court cannot convert acquittal into conviction, but can set aside erroneous conviction.

Important Precedents

National Commission for Women v. State of Delhi, (2010) 12 SCC 599

• Held that the right of appeal is a creature of statute and cannot be invoked under inherent powers; no appeal lies except as provided by law.

Mallikarjun Kodagali v. State of Karnataka, (2019) 2 SCC 752

• Affirmed that the accused has a substantive right to appeal only if specifically conferred by statute.

State of Bihar v. Ram Naresh Pandey, AIR 1957 SC 389

• Held that the word "trial" has no fixed meaning and must be construed contextually; in most provisions, it refers to proceedings after charge framing.

Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92

• Constitution Bench held that trial commences only on framing of charges, not on cognizance.

Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415

• Summarized principles governing appellate court's powers in appeals against acquittal; appellate court has full power to reappreciate evidence.

Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460

• Explained that revisional jurisdiction is supervisory and corrective, exercised sparingly to correct jurisdictional errors or perversity.

Practical Impact

For advocates: This judgment is crucial when advising clients on appellate remedies in criminal cases. If a client is convicted for the first time by a Sessions Court in an appeal against acquittal, the correct remedy is revision, not appeal. Advocates must carefully frame their petitions accordingly.

For future litigation: High Courts will now dismiss appeals filed under Section 374 CrPC against such convictions, directing parties to file revisions instead. This will streamline criminal procedure and prevent misapplication of appellate provisions.

May be cited: In any criminal case where the maintainability of an appeal under Section 374 CrPC is challenged, particularly where the conviction was recorded by a Sessions Court in appellate jurisdiction. Also relevant in cases where the distinction between appeal and revision arises.

Lawcurb Quick Insight

The Court's reliance on the distinction between "trial jurisdiction" and "appellate jurisdiction" is significant. Even though an appeal is a continuation of the trial, the nature of the court's function—original vs. supervisory—determines whether Section 374 applies. This doctrinal clarity resolves a long-standing ambiguity.

Lawcurb Practice Note

When a client is convicted by a Sessions Court in an appeal against acquittal, file a revision petition under Sections 397/401 CrPC before the High Court, not an appeal under Section 374. However, invoke Section 401(1) to request exercise of appellate powers for a more searching review.

Remember This Ratio

Section 374 CrPC applies only to convictions by courts exercising original trial jurisdiction, not to convictions by appellate courts.

Exam Lens

Q: What is the distinction between appellate jurisdiction and revisional jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure? A: Appellate jurisdiction involves a substantive rehearing on facts and law, while revisional jurisdiction is supervisory and discretionary, exercised to correct jurisdictional errors, legal infirmities, or perversity.

Q: Can a person convicted for the first time by a Sessions Court in an appeal against acquittal file an appeal under Section 374 CrPC? A: No. Section 374 applies only to convictions "on a trial held by" a court exercising original trial jurisdiction. The proper remedy is revision under Sections 397/401 CrPC.

Q: What is the significance of Section 401(1) CrPC in such cases? A: Section 401(1) empowers the High Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, to exercise any of the powers conferred on a court of appeal. This allows a more searching examination of the conviction than an ordinary revision would permit.

Final Outcome

• Appeal dismissed — the Supreme Court held that no statutory appeal lies under Section 374 CrPC.

• High Court judgment affirmed — the High Court correctly dismissed the appeal as not maintainable.

• Liberty granted — the appellant is at liberty to file a revision petition before the High Court under Sections 397/401 CrPC.

• Arun Sharma overruled — the Himachal Pradesh High Court's contrary view on maintainability is expressly overruled.

• Guidance issued — High Courts to exercise revisional jurisdiction more liberally in cases of first-time appellate convictions.

Lawcurb Verdict

This judgment is a significant clarification of criminal procedure law. By holding that a conviction by a Sessions Court in appellate jurisdiction is not appealable under Section 374, the Court has reaffirmed the fundamental principle that the right of appeal is a creature of statute and cannot be expanded by judicial interpretation. The distinction between trial and appellate jurisdiction is now firmly established. At the same time, the Court's guidance to High Courts to exercise revisional powers liberally ensures that accused persons are not left remediless. A balanced and principled decision that upholds the statutory framework while safeguarding the interests of justice.

This report is prepared by Lawcurb for educational and informational purposes only. It is a concise summary of the judgment and should not be construed as legal advice. Readers are encouraged to refer to the original judgment before relying on any legal proposition.