Right to Appeal Against Reversal of Acquittal in Appellate Jurisdiction

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B Varale held that no statutory appeal under Section 374 CrPC (corresponding to Section 415 BNSS) is maintainable before the High Court against a conviction recorded by a Sessions Court while exercising appellate jurisdiction and reversing a trial court's order of acquittal. The Court clarified that in such a situation, the only remedy available to the convicted person is to file a revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 CrPC (corresponding to Section 438 read with Section 442 BNSS). 

What was the Background of Vishnu Kumar Gupta v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2026) Case? 

• The appellant was initially acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class. 
• The complainant challenged the acquittal by filing an appeal before the Sessions Court under Section 378 CrPC (corresponding to Section 419 BNSS). 
• The Sessions Court, exercising its appellate jurisdiction, reversed the acquittal and convicted the appellant for the first time. 
• Aggrieved, the appellant filed a further appeal before the High Court under Section 374 CrPC (corresponding to Section 415 BNSS), challenging the Sessions Court's conviction. 
• The High Court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable, holding that no second statutory appeal is contemplated against a conviction recorded by a Sessions Court in appellate jurisdiction, and that the appropriate remedy was a revision. 
• The appellant then approached the Supreme Court against the High Court's decision. 
• The question before the Supreme Court was whether an appeal under Section 374 CrPC/Section 415 BNSS is maintainable against a conviction recorded by a Sessions Court while exercising appellate jurisdiction and reversing a trial court's acquittal. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the scope of Section 374 CrPC: The Court explained that Section 374 contemplates an appeal only from a court that has itself conducted the trial — that is, the court before which proceedings begin with the framing of charges and conclude with the judgment of conviction and sentence. A Sessions Court exercising appellate jurisdiction under Section 378 CrPC does not fall within this description, since it has not itself "held" the trial. 
• On the distinction between trial and appellate jurisdiction: The Bench reasoned that since the Sessions Court's reversal of acquittal was passed in exercise of appellate powers and not "on a trial," the statutory appeal mechanism under Section 374 CrPC could not be invoked against such an order. 
• On the doctrine of continuation of proceedings: The Court rejected the appellant's argument that an appeal is merely a continuation of trial proceedings, and that this doctrine converts an appellate court into a trial court for the purposes of Section 374(2). The Bench observed that this doctrine explains procedural continuity between trial and appeal, but does not by itself convert an appellate court into one exercising trial jurisdiction. 
• On the correctness of Arun Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2019): The Court disapproved of the Himachal Pradesh High Court's reasoning in this case, noting that it had proceeded from the premise of continuation of proceedings to the conclusion that an appellate conviction is a conviction "on a trial," without adequately demonstrating why the latter follows from the former. The Court held this reasoning to be legally unsound. 
• On the correct remedy: The Court held that since no provision under the CrPC or BNSS permits a statutory appeal against a Sessions Court's appellate reversal of acquittal, the only available remedy is a revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 CrPC (Section 438 read with Section 442 BNSS). 
• On the outcome: The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision, but granted the appellant liberty to pursue the revisional remedy against the Sessions Court's conviction. 

What is the Statutory Framework Governing Appeals and Revisions in Such Cases? 

Section 374 CrPC / Section 415 BNSS (Appeals from convictions): 

• Provides a statutory right of appeal against a judgment of conviction passed by a court that has itself conducted the trial. 
• An appeal under this provision lies to a superior court from the trial court that framed charges, recorded evidence, and passed the judgment of conviction and sentence. 

Section 378 CrPC / Section 419 BNSS (Appeal against acquittal): 

• Allows the State or, with leave, a complainant to file an appeal before the Sessions Court or High Court against an order of acquittal passed by a trial court. 

Section 397 read with Section 401 CrPC / Section 438 read with Section 442 BNSS (Revisional jurisdiction): 

• Confers supervisory power on the High Court (or Sessions Court) to examine the correctness, legality, or propriety of an order passed by an inferior criminal court. 
• Unlike an appeal, revision is a discretionary remedy and does not involve a full rehearing on facts and law. 
• This is the remedy available to a person convicted for the first time by a Sessions Court while exercising appellate powers over an acquittal.