INTRODUCTION
In Dr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. with State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anil Rastogi & Ors., 2026 INSC 632, decided on 09 June 2026, the Supreme Court of India, comprising of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, the Supreme Court found that the existing, precedent in Sajan Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh required reconsideration and referred the matter to a larger Bench of such strength, as the Hon’ble the Chief Justice may constitute.
BRIEF FACTS
A murder trail is underway in this case in which the four Accused, including three siblings Anil Rastogi, Ajay Rastogi and Atul Rastogi were accused. The Session Court convicted all the Accused under Section 302 (Punishment for murder), 149 (Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object) and 148 (Rioting, armed with deadly weapon) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
Aggrieved by their conviction, all the Accused filed a joint criminal Appeal before the Allahabad High Court. The Appeal was heard by a Division Bench comprising Justice Bhanwar Singh and Justice Devi Prasad Singh.
Division Bench agreed that Anil and Ajay were guilty and their conviction deserved to be upheld, they differed regarding Atul Rastogi. Justice Bhanwar Singh acquitted Atul, whereas, Justice Devi Prasad Singh maintained his conviction. Subsequently, the matter was referred to Third Judge under section 392 (Procedure where Judges of court of appeal are equally divided) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The Third Judge, Justice Vikram Nath (as His Lordship then was), not only acquitted Atul but also reexamined the conviction order of Anil and Ajay and acquitted them as well. Aggrieved by this Order, the Complainant and the Sate of Uttar Pradesh approached the Supreme Court.
ISSUES OF LAW
- Whether a third Judge hearing a reference under section 392 Crpc is bound to choose between the two opinions already held by the Division Bench Judges.
- Whether the third Judge has power to reconsider and disagree with findings on which both Judges of the Divisions Bench had unanimously agreed.
- Whether in case where the third Judge disagrees with the concurrent findings of the Division Bench the matter should instead be referred to a larger Bench.
ANALYSIS
The Supreme Court examined the statutory framework of section 392 CrPC which governs situation where Judges of a Division Bench differ in their opinions. The main issue was whether a third Judge can reopen findings on which the original Judges had unanimously agreed.
The Apex Court observed that although all the Accused had filed a joint Criminal Appeal, each Accused exercised an independent right of appeal. Subsequently, the Division Bench unanimously upheld the conviction of Anil and Ajay, their Appeals stood concluded. The disagreement existed only regarding Atul and therefore only his Appeal ought to have been placed before the third Judge.
The Supreme Court critically examined the decision in Sajjan Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Court held that a Third Judge may independently reconsider the entire case. According to the Apex Court, such an interpretation could lead to anomalous results, allowing a third Judge to disturb findings unanimously reached by two Judges, thus creating uncertainty and potential unfairness.
The Supreme Court noted the language of section 392 of CrPC, that the provision refers to “the appeal” in which the disagreement arises, signifying that the reference should be limited to that specific appeal rather than the entire case. The Apex Court finding substantial doubts about the correctness of Sajjan Singh, the Court referred the issue to a larger Bench of such strength, as the Hon’ble the Chief Justice may constitute.
TRISHMA KASHYAP
Legal Associate
The Indian Lawyer & Allied Service
Editor’s Comments
By this Judgement, the Supreme Court marks a significant moment in Indian Criminal procedural law. Rather than conclusively deciding the controversy, the Apex Court identified serious concern with the prevailing interpretation of section 392 CrPC and questioned the correctness of Sajjan Singh. The Court refers the matter to a larger Bench, the Court has initiated a re-examination of the powers of a Third Judge and the limits of Appellate review in cases involving divided judicial opinions. Subsequently, the ruling of the larger Bench is likely to clarify an important area of criminal procedure and shape the future course of appellate jurisprudence in India.
Sushila Ram Varma
Advocate and Chief Consultant
The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services
Please log onto our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips, to learn about various aspects of the law. Our latest Video, titled “Hit and Run Case Explained: Punishment, Bail & Legal Process” can be viewed at the link below: