Supreme Court Questions Third Judge’s Powers Under Section 392 CrPC
Split verdict appeals may face new limits on referee judge’s scope
Larger Bench to decide if unanimous findings can be reopened
By Legal Reporter
New Delhi: June 13, 2026:
The Supreme Court of India has referred to a larger Bench the critical question of how far a third judge’s powers extend under Section 392 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) when resolving a split verdict in criminal appeals. The Court expressed doubts about the correctness of its 1999 precedent in Sajjan Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, which allowed a third judge to reopen even unanimous findings of a Division Bench. This ruling could reshape criminal appellate procedure and judicial discipline.
Inheritance and family property disputes often involve competing claims by legal heirs regarding ownership, succession, and the distribution of assets. Indian courts have developed important legal principles to resolve such conflicts while protecting the rights of all interested parties. Readers looking to understand the judicial approach to succession and property-related litigation may refer to Meena Pradhan & Ors vs Kamla Pradhan & Anr , which discusses important legal questions concerning property rights and succession-related claims.
Background of the Case
Origin: A 1991 murder case involving the Rastogi brothers.
Trial Court: Convicted all three under Sections 302, 149, and 148 IPC.
Allahabad High Court Division Bench:
Justice Bhanwar Singh upheld convictions of Anil and Ajay but acquitted Atul.
Justice Devi Prasad Singh upheld convictions of all three.
Third Judge (Justice Vikram Nath): Acquitted all three, including Anil and Ajay, despite unanimous findings of guilt by the Division Bench.
Appeal to Supreme Court: State of UP and complainant challenged the acquittals.
Key Legal Provisions
Section 392 CrPC (1973)
Provides procedure when two judges of a Division Bench hearing a criminal appeal differ.
Case referred to a third judge, whose opinion decides the appeal.
Ambiguity: Whether the third judge can revisit unanimous findings or only resolve points of disagreement.
Section 429 CrPC (1898)
Earlier provision used “case” instead of “appeal.”
Language change in 1973 Code (“an appeal” vs “the appeal”) is central to current debate.
Article 14 of the Constitution
Concern: Allowing a third judge to reopen unanimous findings in composite appeals may create inequality between joint appellants and separate appellants.
Supreme Court’s Observations
Respectful disagreement with Sajjan Singh (1999) precedent.
Judicial discipline requires that unanimous findings of a Division Bench remain untouched.
Referral to Larger Bench: To decide whether third judge’s jurisdiction is confined to points of dissent or extends to entire appeal.
Analytical Perspective
1. Judicial Discipline
Restricting third judge’s powers preserves consistency and prevents arbitrary reopening of settled findings.
2. Equality Concerns
Composite appeals should not give appellants an advantage over those filing separately.
3. Statutory Interpretation
Shift from “case” (1898 Code) to “appeal” (1973 Code) suggests narrower scope for referee judge.
4. Impact on Criminal Justice
Clarification will affect thousands of appeals where split verdicts arise, ensuring predictability in appellate procedure.
Comparative Case Law
Sajjan Singh v. State of MP (1999): Allowed third judge to independently examine entire appeal.
Law Commission’s 41st Report: Discussed rationale for linguistic changes in CrPC.
Recent SC rulings: Emphasize judicial propriety and limits on appellate powers.
FAQ: Quick Legal Index
What is Section 392 CrPC?
It governs procedure when two judges of a Division Bench hearing a criminal appeal differ, referring matter to a third judge.
Can a third judge reopen unanimous findings?
Currently unclear. Sajjan Singh (1999) allowed it, but SC has now referred the issue to a larger Bench.
What is the difference between Section 429 (1898) and Section 392 (1973)?
Section 429 used “case,” while Section 392 uses “appeal,” suggesting narrower scope.
Why is Article 14 relevant?
Because allowing reopening in composite appeals creates inequality compared to separate appeals.
What happens after referral to larger Bench?
The larger Bench will authoritatively decide the scope of third judge’s powers.
Does this affect ongoing appeals?
Yes, until clarified, courts may reserve decisions in similar split verdict cases.
What was the Rastogi case about?
A 1991 murder trial where split verdict led to acquittals by third judge, later challenged in SC.
Why is judicial discipline important?
It ensures consistency, prevents arbitrary reversals, and maintains credibility of appellate system.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s referral of the third judge’s powers under Section 392 CrPC to a larger Bench is a watershed moment in criminal appellate jurisprudence. It questions whether referee judges can reopen unanimous findings or must confine themselves to points of dissent. The outcome will shape the balance between judicial independence and discipline, ensuring fairness and equality in criminal appeals.