Can a Third Judge Differ from Unanimous Opinions in Criminal Appeals? Supreme Court Weighs In
Dr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
Listen to this judgment
• 4 min readKey Takeaways
• A third judge can deliver an independent opinion in criminal appeals, even if it diverges from the unanimous conclusions of the previous judges.
• Section 392 of the CrPC mandates that the third judge must examine the entire case, not just the points of disagreement.
• The phraseology in Section 392 of the CrPC differs significantly from Section 429 of the 1898 Code, impacting judicial interpretation.
• Judicial discipline and propriety must be maintained when applying the law laid down in previous judgments.
• The Supreme Court has referred the interpretation of Sajjan Singh's case to a larger bench for further clarification.
Introduction
The Supreme Court of India recently addressed critical questions regarding the authority of a third judge in criminal appeals, particularly under Section 392 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). This ruling has significant implications for how appeals are handled when there is a division of opinion among judges in a division bench. The court's decision not only clarifies the procedural aspects but also emphasizes the importance of judicial independence and the need for a comprehensive examination of cases.
Case Background
The case at hand involves two separate criminal appeals: one by Dr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta and another by the State of Uttar Pradesh. Both appeals challenge the judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which acquitted the Rastogi brothers—Anil, Ajay, and Atul—of charges under Sections 302 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The High Court's decision was based on a division of opinion among the judges of the division bench, leading to the referral of the case to a third judge.
The Rastogi brothers were initially convicted by the Sessions Court and sentenced to life imprisonment. However, upon appeal, the division bench of the High Court had differing opinions regarding the conviction of Atul Rastogi, leading to his acquittal while Anil and Ajay's convictions were upheld. This division prompted the referral to a third judge, who ultimately acquitted all three brothers, leading to the present appeals.
What The Lower Authorities Held
The Sessions Court convicted the Rastogi brothers based on the evidence presented, which included testimonies and circumstantial evidence linking them to the crime. The High Court, upon hearing the appeals, found itself divided in opinion. Justice Bhanwar Singh upheld the convictions of Anil and Ajay, while Justice Devi Prasad Singh acquitted Atul. The differing opinions necessitated the referral to a third judge, who ultimately found that the prosecution had failed to establish the charges against Anil and Ajay, leading to their acquittal as well.
The Court's Reasoning
The Supreme Court, led by Justice Dipankar Datta, examined the implications of Section 392 of the CrPC, which governs the procedure when judges of a division bench are divided in opinion. The court emphasized that the third judge is not merely a referee but has the authority to independently assess the entire case. This independence is crucial for ensuring that justice is served, particularly in criminal matters where the stakes are high.
The court noted that the phraseology of Section 392 is distinct from that of Section 429 of the 1898 Code, which has led to different interpretations over time. The Supreme Court highlighted that the language of Section 392 allows for a broader interpretation, enabling the third judge to consider the entire appeal rather than being confined to the points of disagreement.
Statutory Interpretation
The court's interpretation of Section 392 is pivotal. It clarifies that the third judge must deliver an opinion that reflects an independent assessment of the case, which may diverge from the opinions of the judges in the division bench. This interpretation aligns with the principles of judicial independence and the need for a thorough examination of evidence in criminal cases.
The court also referenced previous judgments, including Sajjan Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, which established that the opinion of the third judge is paramount and must guide the final judgment. However, the Supreme Court expressed its intention to refer the interpretation of Sajjan Singh to a larger bench, indicating that there may be nuances that require further exploration.
CONSTITUTIONAL OR POLICY CONTEXT
The ruling underscores the importance of judicial propriety and discipline in the criminal justice system. By allowing a third judge to independently assess the entire case, the court reinforces the principle that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done. This is particularly relevant in cases involving serious charges where the consequences of a conviction can be life-altering.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is significant for legal practitioners as it clarifies the procedural framework surrounding appeals in criminal cases. It emphasizes the need for a comprehensive examination of all aspects of a case, particularly when there is a division of opinion among judges. The ruling also highlights the evolving nature of judicial interpretation and the importance of adapting legal principles to ensure justice.
Final Outcome
The Supreme Court ultimately reserved its answers to the questions regarding the interpretation of Sajjan Singh's case for a larger bench, while affirming the independence of the third judge in assessing criminal appeals. This decision sets a precedent for future cases where similar procedural questions may arise, ensuring that the rights of the accused are protected and that justice is served.
Case Details
- Citation: 2026 INSC 632
- Court: In The Supreme Court Of India
- Bench: DIPANKAR DATTA, J. & SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.
- Date of Judgment: June 09, 2026