Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 · Chapter XXIX: Appeals
Section 374: Appeals from convictions
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to offences and proceedings from before that date.
(1) Any person convicted on a trial held by a High Court in its extraordinary original criminal jurisdiction may appeal to the Supreme Court. 1. Ins. by Act 5 of 2009, s. 29 (w.e.f. 31-12-2009).
(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 [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. [(4) When an appeal has been filed against a sentence passed under section 376, section 376A, section 376AB, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB or section 376E of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), the appeal shall be disposed of within a period of six months from the date of filing of such appeal.]
Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here. Official text on India Code.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 374
-
Dashwanth v. State of Tamil Nadu
Trial Court found appellant guilty for the charges framed u/ss.302, 201, 363, 366 and 354-B of the IPC and s.8 r/w. s.7 and s.6 r/w. s.5(m) of the POCSO Act. An appeal against the said conviction was dismissed by the…
-
Akhtar Ali @ Ali Akhtar @ Shamim @ Raja Ustad v. State of Uttarakhand
Whether the conviction of the appellants, as recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the High Court, deserves to be upheld or whether they are entitled to acquittal.
-
Tarun Sharma v. State of Haryana.
Conviction of the appellant u/s.302, IPC based on the statement/ dying declaration (Exh. P-34) of the deceased, if ought to be set aside.
-
Nadeem Ahamed v. The State of West Bengal
Whether the Courts below erred in convicting the accused-appellant for the offences punishable u/ss.21(c) and 29, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
-
Khem Singh (D) Through Lrs v. State of Uttaranchal (Now State of Uttarakhand) & Another Etc.
During pendency of these appeals, son of original appellant (since deceased) filed an application seeking setting aside of the abatement and for substitution. Whether the applicant is entitled to be substituted in place…
-
Asian Paints Limited v. Ram Babu & Another
Whether the appellant-company falls under the definition of ‘victim’ in terms of s.2(wa) r/w the proviso to s.372, CrPC or whether s.378, CrPC would prevail in the facts and circumstances; whether an appeal under the…
-
Sachin v. State of Maharashtra
Issue arose whether, the High Court could enhance the sentence under its revisional powers in a convict’s appeal against conviction.
-
M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran Etc.
Issue arose as regards the maintainability of an appeal under proviso to s.372 CrPC against order of acquittal in a case instituted upon a private complaint u/s.138 Negotiable Instruments Act, by treating the…
-
Biswajit Das v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Conviction for offences under section 468 r/w section 120(B), section 271 and section 465 r/w 120(B) and section 420 r/w section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) as well as section 13(1)(d) read with…
-
Abdul Nassar v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Whether the prosecution has proved by leading clinching and convincing circumstantial evidence that the accused had committed forcible and violent sexual assault on the child victim and, thereafter, strangled and killed…
-
Amar Sardar v. The State of West Bengal
Whether the High Court was justified in affirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Fast Track Court.
-
The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramjan Khan & Ors.
Whether the High Court was right in setting aside the conviction of the respondents-accused under Section 302, IPC read with Section 34, IPC.
-
Nitya Nand v. State of U.P. & Anr.
Whether the prosecution could prove the charges against the appellant under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. Whether the appellant was a part of the unlawful assembly and if he actually took part in…
-
Selvamani v. The State Rep. By The Inspector of Police
Appellant was one of the five accused persons who were found guilty of committing the offence of gang rape and was convicted under Section 376(g) and 506(1) of Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of…
-
M/S Rajco Steel Enterprises v. Kavita Saraff and Another
Issue arose as to whether the cheques were issued in discharge of a debt and if so, whether the respondent no.1 was able to rebut the presumption in terms of s. 118/139 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881.
-
Thirumoorthy v. State Represented by the Inspector of Police
Appellant-accused, a Child in Conflict with Law on the date of the incident was convicted and sentenced u/ss.363, 342, 302, 201 r/w 302, IPC and s.6, POCSO Act. Trial, conviction and sentence of the appellant, if was…
-
Kumar @ Shiva Kumar v. State of Karnataka
Appellant was convicted for the offence u/s. 306 IPC by the trial Court and the conviction was upheld by the High Court. Whether the prosecution proved the charge of abetment to commit suicide u/s. 306 IPC against the…
-
Mohammed Khalid and Another v. The State of Telangana
Whether the High Court was justified in affirming the judgment of the trial court convicting and sentencing the accused appellants for the charge u/s. 8(c) r/w. s.20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic…
-
Afjal Ansari v. State of UP
What are the parameters to be considered for the suspension of conviction u/s. 389(1) CrPC; whether the appellant has made out a prima facie case for the suspension of conviction u/s. 389(1) CrPC; and whether conviction…
-
Munna Pandey v. State of Bihar
Whether the High Court erred in confirming the conviction and death sentence passed by trial court against appellant-accused for offences punishable u/ss.302, 376, IPC and s.4, POCSO Act, 2012, despite serious lapses in…
- Md. Jabbar Ali & Ors. v. The State of Assam
- Dhananjay Rai @ Guddu Rai v. State of Bihar
- Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd. & Ors.
- P Ramesh v. State Rep by Inspector of Police
- Kumar Ghimirey v. The State of Sikkim
- Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Classic Credit Ltd.
- Satish Nirankari v. State of Rajasthan
- Yogesh Singh v. Mahabeer Singh & Ors.
- B.A. Umesh v. Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka
- State of Madhya Pradesh v. Anoop Singh
- Amrutlal Liladharbhai Kotak & Ors. v. State of Gujarat
- Bhim Singh and Anr. v. State of Utiarakhand
- Mohd. Arif @Ashfaq v. He Registrar, Supreme Court of India & Ors.
- Shabir Ahmed Teli v. State of Jammu & Kashmir
- Ashok Kumar Sharma v. State of Rajasthan
- Jeetu @ Jitendera & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh
- Kunal Majumdar v. State of Rajasthan
- Babla @ Dinesh v. State of Uttarakhand
- Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India & Others
- Mohd. Ayub Dar v. State of J & K
- Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H.
- Amarjit Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab
- Ram Bharosey v. State of U.P.
- Panneerselvam v. State of Tamil Nadu
- State of Rajasthan v. Udai Lal
- Krishnan v. State Represented by Inspector of Police
- Bathula Nagamalleswara Rao & Ors. v. State Rep. by Public Prosecutor
- Shantabai & Ors v. State of Maharashtra
- J. Ramulu v. State of Andhra Pradesh
- Yogesh Narain Saxena v. State of Uttaranchal
- Shivu and Anr. v. R.G. High Court of Karnataka and Anr.
- Ravikant S. Patil v. Sarvabhouma S. Bagali
- S. Chinnasamy and Anr. v. Seed Inspector, Coimbatore and Anr.
- State of Rajasthan v. Sohan Lal and Ors.
- Dwarka Das and Ors. v. State of Haryana
- Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar
- State of Tamil Nadu v. A. Jaganathan
- Ramanarang v. Ramesh Narang and Ors.