Criminal appeals, victim appeals and revisions under the BNSS

Section 413 of the BNSS (formerly Section 372 of the CrPC) says that no appeal lies from a criminal court's judgment or order except as the BNSS or another law provides. Its proviso gives the victim a right to appeal against an order acquitting the accused, convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation. The appeal lies to the court that ordinarily hears appeals against conviction from that court. Section 2 of the BNSS defines a victim as a person who has suffered loss or injury caused by the accused's act or omission, and includes the victim's guardian or legal heir.

Section 415 of the BNSS (formerly Section 374 of the CrPC) sets the forum. A person convicted by a High Court in its extraordinary original criminal jurisdiction appeals to the Supreme Court. A person convicted by a Sessions Judge or Additional Sessions Judge, or sentenced by any other court to more than seven years, appeals to the High Court. A person convicted by a Magistrate of the first or second class appeals to the Court of Session. Appeals against sentences under Sections 64 to 68, 70 and 71 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita must be decided within six months of filing (Section 415(4)).

The State may appeal against an inadequate sentence under Section 418 of the BNSS (formerly Section 377 of the CrPC). Section 420 of the BNSS (formerly Section 379 of the CrPC) gives an appeal to the Supreme Court against a conviction by the High Court in certain cases.

Section 419 of the BNSS (formerly Section 378 of the CrPC) lets the Public Prosecutor, on the direction of the District Magistrate or the State Government, appeal against an acquittal. An appeal to the High Court needs its leave. Where the case began on a complaint, the complainant may appeal only if the High Court grants special leave, and if special leave is refused no State appeal lies from that acquittal. Under Section 378(5) of the CrPC, which governs cases still under the old Code, the application for special leave had to be made within six months where the complainant is a public servant and sixty days in every other case.

The appellate court can review all the evidence, but its approach is cautious. In Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka the Supreme Court said that acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence, and that an acquittal based on a reasonable view of the evidence should not be reversed merely because another view is possible. In Tulasareddi v. State of Karnataka (2026) the Court restated that interference requires patent perversity, a misreading or omission of material evidence, or a record on which only the view of guilt is possible.

In Mallikarjun Kodagali the Supreme Court held that a victim may appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC to the court that ordinarily hears appeals against conviction, and that the appeal must be heard on its merits.

Two 2025 decisions widened its reach. In Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran the Court held that a victim may appeal under the proviso without seeking special leave, whether or not he is also the complainant, and that the payee of a dishonoured cheque in a Section 138 case can appeal as a victim. In Asian Paints v. Ram Babu the Court held that where the acquittal is first recorded by a Sessions Court in appeal, the victim's appeal lies to the High Court.

Under Section 438 of the BNSS (formerly Section 397 of the CrPC) the High Court or a Sessions Judge may call for the record of an inferior criminal court to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. Section 397(2) and (3) of the CrPC barred revision of interlocutory orders and a second revision by the same person before the other court.

Section 442 of the BNSS sets limits on the High Court's revisional power. No order may be made to the prejudice of the accused without hearing him. The High Court cannot convert an acquittal into a conviction. A party who could have appealed and did not cannot seek revision, although a revision filed in the mistaken belief that no appeal lay may be treated as an appeal.

Section 430 of the BNSS (formerly Section 389 of the CrPC) lets the appellate court, for recorded reasons, suspend the sentence and release the appellant on bail or bond. Where the offence is punishable with death, life imprisonment or ten years or more, the Public Prosecutor must first be given an opportunity to show cause in writing. In CBI v. Ashok Sirpal (2024) the Supreme Court held that the power extends to a sentence of fine, and that any condition to deposit money must not be so harsh that it defeats the right of appeal.

If a person who was on bail is sentenced to not more than three years, or is convicted of a bailable offence, the trial court must release him on bail for long enough to file the appeal, unless there are special reasons to refuse. The sentence is deemed suspended while he is on that bail.