The Supreme Court has settled a question that has troubled criminal courts for years - can a person convicted for the first time by a Sessions Court, while it was hearing an appeal against his acquittal, file a further appeal before the High Court? A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B. Varale has answered this in the negative, holding that no such appeal is maintainable under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 415 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023).
Background Of The Case
The case arose out of a matrimonial dispute between Vishnu Kumar Gupta and his wife. The wife had lodged a Zero FIR at Indore alleging cruelty, assault and dowry harassment under Section 498-A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The FIR was later transferred to Bhind, where a chargesheet was filed against the husband and his parents.
The trial court acquitted all three accused in December 2024, finding the prosecution's evidence unconvincing. The wife then appealed to the Sessions Court at Bhind. In May 2025, the Sessions Court partly reversed the acquittal - it upheld the acquittal of the parents but convicted the husband, sentencing him to three years' imprisonment under Section 498-A and two years under the Dowry Prohibition Act, to run consecutively.
The husband challenged this conviction before the Madhya Pradesh High Court under Section 374 Cr.P.C. The High Court dismissed his appeal at the threshold itself, holding that it was not maintainable since it would effectively amount to a second appeal, and that only a revision petition could be filed. The husband then approached the Supreme Court.
Arguments Before The Court
The husband's counsel argued that since this was his first-ever conviction, denying him an appellate remedy would violate Article 21 of the Constitution. He pointed to the wording of Section 374 - "convicted on a trial held by" - and argued that a conviction by the Sessions Court in appeal was still founded "on" the original trial, and should therefore be appealable.
The State and the complainant, on the other hand, maintained that the right to appeal is purely a creature of statute. Since the law does not provide for a second appeal against an appellate conviction, the only remedy available was a criminal revision before the High Court.
Court's Observations
The bench undertook a detailed examination of what the word "trial" means under the Cr.P.C., tracing it through several earlier judgments including the Constitution Bench ruling in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab. It held that a trial begins with the framing of charges and ends with the judgment of conviction and sentence - and this is distinct from appellate proceedings.
The Court observed that although an appeal is a continuation of the original trial for certain legal purposes, this does not convert the appellate court into a trial court. The bench held that a Sessions Judge deciding an appeal exercises appellate jurisdiction and not trial jurisdiction, and the mere fact that an appeal continues the original proceedings does not alter this character.
Significantly, the Court overruled a 2019 Himachal Pradesh High Court decision in Arun Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh, which had taken the opposite view and allowed an appeal in similar circumstances, holding that judgment did not lay down correct law.
The Remedy Available
The bench clarified that persons convicted for the first time by an appellate court are not left without recourse - they can approach the High Court through a criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. However, the Court directed that such revisions deserve a more liberal and searching examination, given that the accused never had the benefit of a full statutory appeal.
Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that no appeal lies under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against a conviction recorded by a Sessions Court while reversing an order of acquittal.
The Court granted the appellant liberty to file a revision petition against the Sessions Court's order instead.
Case Details:
Case Title: Vishnu Kumar Gupta v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.
Case Number: SLP (Crl.) No. 13891 of 2025 (Criminal Appeal arising therefrom)
Judge: Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B. Varale
Decision Date: July 30, 2026
