Supreme Court Refers Tie-Breaker Judge Powers in Split Verdicts to Larger Bench

The Supreme Court of India has referred a significant question of criminal appellate procedure to a larger bench: can a third judge, appointed to resolve a split verdict under Section 392 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 433 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), go beyond the specific points of disagreement and reopen findings on which the original two judges were unanimous? The reference was made in Dr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2026 INSC 632) by a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma.

The Statutory Framework: Section 392 CrPC and Section 433 BNSS

Section 392 of the CrPC provides that when an appeal is heard by a bench of judges of the High Court and the judges are equally divided in opinion, the case shall be laid before another judge of the same court. That judge, after such hearing as he thinks fit, delivers his opinion, and the judgment follows that opinion. The corresponding provision under the BNSS 2023 is Section 433, which retains the same substantive framework.

The critical question is the scope of the third judge's jurisdiction. Does the third judge function as a referee limited to deciding the points on which the original bench disagreed? Or does the third judge have the power to re-examine the entire case from scratch, including points on which both original judges reached an identical conclusion?

For a comprehensive overview of the new criminal procedure framework: BNSS 2023: The New Criminal Procedure Code and What It Changes.

The Facts That Triggered the Reference

The case arose from the conviction of three siblings, including Dr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta, under Sections 148 and 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code. When the criminal appeal reached the Allahabad High Court Division Bench, both judges unanimously affirmed the conviction of two of the accused. They disagreed, however, on the culpability of the third accused.

The matter was then placed before a third judge (Justice Nath) under Section 392 CrPC. In a 2018 verdict, Justice Nath acquitted all three brothers, including the two whose conviction both original judges had unanimously upheld. This outcome created the anomaly that the Supreme Court found deeply troubling: a single judge effectively overturned a concurrent finding of guilt by two judges on an issue that was never in dispute between them.

The 1999 Precedent Being Questioned: Sajjan Singh v. State of MP

The judgment under scrutiny is Sajjan Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1999) 1 SCC 315 (Supreme Court, September 2, 1998). In that decision, the Supreme Court held that a referee judge appointed under Section 392 is empowered to examine the entire case afresh without being bound by any unanimous conclusion of the original Division Bench.

The bench in Dr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta expressed "respectful disagreement" with this interpretation, observing that it leads to "highly irrational and unequal outcomes." The Court noted that if a third judge can revisit unanimous findings, the entire purpose of a multi-judge bench is undermined: a single judge's opinion would carry more weight than the concurrent views of two judges on matters that were never in dispute.

Implications for Criminal Appeals

The reference to a larger bench could reshape how split verdicts are resolved in criminal appeals across India. If the larger bench limits the third judge's jurisdiction to the points of disagreement, it would provide greater certainty and prevent situations where unanimous findings are reversed by a single judge. It would also address the fairness concern that a co-accused whose conviction was upheld by both original judges should not have that conviction revisited by the third judge who was appointed only to break the deadlock on a different accused.

For analysis of key BNS changes that affect criminal liability and procedure: Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023: Key Changes from IPC Every Citizen Must Know.

Related Reading

Anticipatory Bail in India: How Section 482 BNSS Works and When Courts Grant It

Default Bail Under BNSS 2023: Supreme Court Clarifies That Applications Can Be Decided Independently

Bail Suppression Doctrine: Supreme Court Rules on Duty of Full Disclosure by Accused

This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice specific to your situation, consult a qualified advocate.