Appeals from convictions
Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with appeals from convictions. Any person convicted on a trial held by a High Court in its extraordinary original criminal jurisdiction may appeal to the Supreme Court. The Act came into force on 01 Apr 1974. Repealed by section 531 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
(1) Any person convicted on a trial held by a High Court in its extraordinary original criminal jurisdiction may appeal to the Supreme Court.
(2) Any person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge or on a trial held by any other Court in which a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years 2[has been passed against him or against any other person convicted at the same trial], may appeal to the High Court.
(3) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2), any person,-
(a) convicted on a trial held by a Metropolitan Magistrate or Assistant Sessions Judge or Magistrate of the first class, or of the second class, or
(b) sentenced under section 325, or
(c) in respect of whom an order has been made or a sentence has been passed under section 360 by any Magistrate,
may appeal to the Court of Session.
Section 374, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974).
Now in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
BNSS 415 Appeals from convictions Text carried over almost unchanged 93%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
This section refers to
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Ram Ratan vs State of Rajasthan
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An appellate court hearing a criminal appeal under Section 374 CrPC, acting as the last court of facts, must conduct substantive analysis of both facts and law through reasoned judgment; summary dismissal of appeals without adequate consideration of evidence and legal contentions violates procedural justice and is grounds for Supreme Court interference requiring fresh hearing.
On this section: Appellate hearing must be on both facts and law - High Court is last court of facts. Court's critical reasoning about appellate court's duty under this section
-
Selvamani vs The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a victim of gang rape and her family members retract their testimony during cross-examination due to long trial delays and possible witness intimidation, their evidence cannot be rejected in toto. Instead, the court must carefully scrutinize the evidence and accept those parts which are dependable and consistent with corroborating evidence such as the FIR, medical examination findings, and statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC. If such corroborating evidence establishes that forcible sexual intercourse occurred, the conviction can be sustained despite the victim's retraction, provided the medical evidence clearly shows injuries consistent with gang rape.
On this section: Provides for appeals by convicted persons. The accused filed appeals under this section challenging the trial court's conviction.
-
B. A. Umesh vs Regr. Gen. High Court of Karnataka
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In a case involving rape followed by murder of a defenseless widow, combined with robbery, where the convict is a former police official with a history of seven prior convictions spanning multiple serious crimes, escape from judicial custody, commission of another crime within days of the present crime, and demonstrated lack of reformation potential and future dangerousness to society, the cumulative aggravating circumstances satisfy the 'rarest of rare' test established in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab and justify capital punishment as the appropriate sentence. The young age of the offender, non-premeditation, or leaving a child victim alive do not constitute sufficient mitigating circumstances to outweigh these grave aggravating factors. Furthermore, Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. does not mandate a separate hearing date on sentence if the accused has been adequately heard on the question of sentence by the trial court and appellate courts.
On this section: Provides right of appeal to convict against conviction and sentence; Criminal Appeal No. 2408 of 2006 filed under this section
-
Surya Baksh Singh vs State Of Uttar Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The High Court possesses inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC to dismiss criminal appeals filed by convicts who deliberately obtain bail or exemption from surrender and thereafter wilfully abscond or fail to prosecute their appeals, provided the Court has first taken reasonable steps to secure the appellant's presence (including proceedings against sureties). However, such dismissal should be preceded by examination of the case on merits where practicable, and the Court must ensure that the appellant has had a fair opportunity to be heard. The ends of justice, which include protection of society and victims' rights alongside convict rights, justify application of Section 482 to prevent abuse of the appellate process by convicts seeking to circumvent their sentences.
On this section: Provides right of appeal to High Court for persons convicted with sentence of imprisonment exceeding seven years
-
State of Rajasthan vs Udai Lal
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In narcotic drug trafficking cases under the NDPS Act, appellate courts must properly evaluate all evidence and circumstances, including witness credibility through admitted signatures on spot documents and sample evidence from bulk seizures, rather than acquitting on flimsy grounds based on hostile witnesses or non-production of entire bulk quantity; procedural irregularities in search and seizure do not render evidence inadmissible if court finds no serious prejudice or tampering, and appellate courts must intervene when trial courts' findings are manifestly unreasonable causing miscarriage of justice.
On this section: Powers available to appellate court in criminal appeals generally
-
Securities and Exchange Board of India vs S. K. Shelgikar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a special statute expressly or by necessary implication divests lower courts of jurisdiction and vests it in higher courts through amendment, such amendment operates retrospectively to all pending matters, including those where offences were committed before the amendment and proceedings initiated before the amendment, unless the amendment itself expressly provides otherwise. The change of forum in such cases is not merely procedural but is mandated by express statutory language, and no person has a vested right to be tried by a particular forum once proceedings have been initiated. The legislative intent for retrospective application can be inferred from express language divesting jurisdiction from lower courts and vesting it exclusively in higher courts, as evidenced by phrases such as 'No court inferior to that of a Court of Session shall try any offence' and 'all offences committed prior to or after the date of commencement shall be tried by Special Court.'
On this section: Established that appeals from Sessions court convictions lie to High Court, preserving appellate remedy despite change of forum
-
Pravesh @ Pravash Kumar v. State of Arunachal Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Final Order order-1.pdf 2021-07-22 DATE VERIFIED. Itanagar Bench, Nani Tagia J. Crl.A. 6/2021. Quotes CrPC 374(1)–(4). Isolates the appeal-forum rule: a JMFC conviction with imprisonment of less than seven years appeals to the Sessions Court under 374(3)(a), not to the High Court under 374(2); the convict cannot choose the forum. Map crpc 374 cited + bnss 415 successor (near-identical 0.926). Do not pad ipc 279/304A or crpc 357 (already filled).
On this section: A JMFC conviction with imprisonment under seven years appeals to Sessions under CrPC 374(3)(a), not to the High Court under 374(2) (Pravesh Kumar).
-
Malkhan Singh vs State Of M.P.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Conviction based on circumstantial evidence is valid and can sustain a murder conviction under Section 302 IPC when: (1) the chain of circumstances is complete and leaves no reasonable doubt; (2) eye-witnesses, even if close relatives of the deceased, are credible if they have no previous animosity and their testimony is consistent with other evidence; (3) delay in recording witness statements under Section 161 CrPC does not automatically render the prosecution case suspect if the delay is explained and the explanation is plausible and acceptable; (4) motive is established through credible witness testimony; (5) the nature and extent of injuries corroborate the ocular evidence; (6) weapons and blood-stained clothes recovered from the accused corroborate the prosecution case; and (7) in the absence of any extenuating circumstances prescribed by the five exceptions to Section 300 IPC, the intention and knowledge to commit murder is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
On this section: Basis for filing criminal appeal; the appellants filed the appeal under this section challenging the conviction and sentence.
-
Sri Mandepanda Rajesh @ Aiyappa vs State of Karnataka
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When eyewitness testimony is clear and specific regarding the identity of the perpetrator and the commission of the offence, and such testimony is corroborated by medical evidence of grievous injuries, ballistic expert opinion confirming the nature of the weapon used, and circumstantial evidence of the accused's presence at the scene and possession of the weapon, the conviction can be upheld despite minor contradictions or discrepancies in the evidence, provided such discrepancies do not go to the root of the prosecution case. The Trial Court's acquittal of co-accused persons based on lack of evidence of conspiracy does not necessarily require the acquittal of the principal accused when direct evidence establishes his guilt.
On this section: Appellate jurisdiction of High Court - provides the legal basis for filing this criminal appeal against the Trial Court's conviction and sentence
-
Rankanidhi Behera vs State
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The testimony of a child witness aged 11-12 years, when subjected to heightened scrutiny and found to be clear, cogent, reliable and trustworthy, can form the sole basis for conviction in a murder case, particularly when: (1) the child's presence at the scene of occurrence is natural and undisputed; (2) the child's testimony is corroborated by medical evidence and recovery evidence; (3) the child witness demonstrates confidence and consistency in core facts despite minor contradictions in peripheral details; (4) the trial judge's observation regarding the demeanor of the child witness supports credibility; and (5) voluntary intoxication of the accused cannot serve as a defense to negate the intention required for murder under Section 302 IPC.
On this section: Appeal from judgment of Sessions Court. Basis for the criminal appeal (JCRLA) filed by the appellant against the conviction.
-
Gurrapu Sunil Kumar vs Naidu Daiva Vara Prasad
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be compounded at the appellate stage under Section 147, and upon such compromise, the conviction and sentence are liable to be set aside.
On this section: Provision under which the appeal was filed.
-
Naveen Makhija vs The State of Madhya Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where the prosecution proves through cogent evidence that an accused has created a fake social media profile in another person's name and used it to post obscene photographs and vulgar messages for the purpose of defamation and harassment, the conviction under Sections 66B and 66C of the Information Technology Act, 2000 is justified and should be upheld. However, in cases involving young first-time offenders without criminal antecedents, the court may exercise discretion to reduce the custodial sentence to the period already undergone while enhancing the fine to serve as a deterrent.
On this section: Jurisdiction and procedure for criminal appeals to High Court - Provides the legal basis for this appeal
-
Ashraf vs State of U.p.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 361 CrPC mandates that trial courts must consider and apply the provisions of Section 360 CrPC or the beneficial provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 before imposing imprisonment on eligible offenders. If such provisions are not applied, the court must record special reasons for the same. Failure to do so constitutes illegality. First-time offenders with no criminal antecedents, particularly when significant time has elapsed since the incident, are entitled to the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, and appellate courts have the authority to grant such benefits even if the trial court failed to consider them.
On this section: Provides the jurisdiction for criminal appeals against judgment and order of conviction and sentence
-
PAWAN S/O GANGADHAR KULKARNI vs PRAKASH G SHETTY SINCE DECEASED R/BY HIS Lr. RAJESHWARI PRAKASH SHETTY
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When An Accused In A Criminal Trial Is Denied Reasonable Opportunity To Cross-Examine The Complainant's Witness And To Present Defence Evidence Due To Procedural Defects Such As Absence During Trial And Lack Of Proper Representation, The Conviction Passed By The Trial Court Violates Principles Of Natural Justice And Fair Trial, And The Appellate Court Must Set Aside The Conviction And Remand The Case For Fresh Trial From The Stage Of Cross-Examination To Ensure Compliance With Principles Of Natural Justice And Provide The Accused With A Fair Opportunity To Meet The Case Of The Prosecution.
On this section: Appeal Against Conviction; Appellant Preferred Appeal Under This Section Against The Trial Court's Conviction Order
-
Nikhila Gupta vs Indu Verma
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a cheque is issued by an authorized signatory of a company and is dishonoured, the signatory can be held criminally liable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, even if the cheque is from the company's account. The fact that another partner manages the account does not absolve the signatory of liability if their signature appears on the cheque and they are authorized to issue cheques on behalf of the company. The presumption under Section 139 applies, and the burden is on the accused to rebut it with credible evidence. Merely arguing that the cheque was from a company account managed by another person is not sufficient to rebut the presumption.
On this section: Appeal from conviction - procedure for filing criminal appeals from trial court convictions
-
State of Odisha vs Laba@kalia Manna
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In a case of murder based on circumstantial evidence, when the chain of circumstances is complete and unerringly points to the guilt of the accused, conviction can be sustained. However, allegations of sexual assault cannot be inferred from genital injuries alone without scientific corroboration such as semen or DNA evidence. Furthermore, in determining whether death sentence should be imposed, the court must apply the 'rarest of rare' doctrine by balancing aggravating and mitigating circumstances, with life imprisonment being the rule and death sentence being the exception. Death sentence should be imposed only when there is something uncommon about the crime rendering life imprisonment altogether inadequate, and when there is no alternative but to impose death sentence even after according maximum weightage to mitigating circumstances. In cases based entirely on circumstantial evidence, the irrevocability of death sentence must be a definite factor at the sentencing stage.
On this section: Appeal against conviction and sentence; basis for CRLA petition by condemned prisoner
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… We shall also not be understood to have held that merely because the trial Court and the High Court have rendered divergent findings, this Court should invariably scrutinize the evidence once again and in that regard this Court should entertain an appeal. In an appeal, against conviction in murder case under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the 'Cr.P.C.'), a proper analysis of the evidence and accepting or rejecting, the appreciation of evidence by the trial Court must reflect in the judgment of the High Court. In other words, the disposal of the appeal under Section 374, Cr.P.C., shall not be by cryptic or …
-
… Raju Datta, Public Prosecutor. Date of hearing and delivery of Judgment & Order : 01/07/2025. Whether fit for reporting : NO. HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. T. AMARNATH GOUD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT J U D G M E N T & O R D E R(ORAL) (DR.T. AMARNATH GOUD,J) This appeal has been filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04-03-2021 passed in SPL (POCSO) 27 of 2020 by the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Agartala, West Tripura, convicting and sentencing the appellant to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of 20 (twenty) years and …
-
… Rakhi Dubey, Advocate on the panel of Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee. versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI Through Lodhi Colony .....Respondent Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. Appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.' hereinafter ) has been filed by the Appellant against the Judgment and Order dated 08.12.2007 vide which learned Additional Session Judge has convicted the Petitioner under Section 376 IPC, in FIR No. 195/2006, Police Station Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. 2. …
Questions about Section 374
What have the courts held on Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
Ram Ratan vs State of Rajasthan (08 Oct 2010) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Appellate hearing must be on both facts and law - High Court is last court of facts. Court's critical reasoning about appellate court's duty under this section. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 6 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2008 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: CRPC 374, section 374 CRPC, section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Ram Ratan vs State of Rajasthan (08 Oct 2010).
What should I read with Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 325 (Procedure when Magistrate cannot pass sentence sufficiently severe), section 360 (Order to release on probation of good conduct or after admonition), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 3 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNSS 415 (Appeals from convictions), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure come into force?
Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cited as CRPC 374, came into force on 01 Apr 1974, having been enacted on 25 Jan 1974. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 320. Compounding of offences1554 words
- 167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty four hours1005 words
- 220. Trial for more than one offence962 words
- 360. Order to release on probation of good conduct or after admonition804 words
- 2. Definitions799 words
- 198. Prosecution for offences against marriage774 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 330a1099-77ad-4a2e-b22a-769b33398f9e). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.