Dr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (with connected appeal State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anil Rastogi & Ors.)
Background
Four persons (a father and three sons, the "Rastogi siblings," plus a co-accused) were tried for a 1991 murder; the Sessions Court convicted the siblings and sentenced them to life imprisonment. On their composite appeal, a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court split: one judge upheld the conviction of two siblings (Anil and Ajay) but acquitted the third (Atul), while the other judge upheld the conviction of all three. Under Section 392 CrPC, the matter went to a third ("referee") judge, who not only acquitted Atul (on which there was already disagreement) but also went on to reverse the concurring findings against Anil and Ajay, acquitting all three, even though both original judges had actually agreed on their guilt. The complainant and the State of Uttar Pradesh separately appealed this to the Supreme Court, both filed as Crl.A. No.-002372 arising from this reference along with a connected case bearing the same lead judgment.
Decision Breakdown
The core legal question was whether a third judge under Section 392 CrPC, when a Division Bench is divided in opinion only as to one of several co-accused (here, Atul), can also reopen and reverse findings on the other co-accused (Anil and Ajay) where the original two judges had actually agreed. Through a close textual analysis of "an appeal" versus "the appeal" in Section 392, and tracing the provision's history back to Section 429 of the 1898 Code, the Court found strong grounds to doubt the correctness of its own earlier precedent (Sajjan Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh) which had permitted such a broader reconsideration by the third judge. However, rather than finally deciding the point itself, the Bench recorded its respectful disagreement with Sajjan Singh and referred the question of whether that precedent lays down correct law to a larger Bench to be constituted by the Chief Justice. The Court expressly reserved its own answer on the merits, meaning these appeals remain pending final disposal until the larger Bench rules on the reference.
Lesson Learnt
This is not yet a final verdict on the underlying murder case. It is a procedural reference flagging that when appellate judges split on the fate of only one co-accused among several, a third ("referee") judge's power to also revisit and overturn the judges' unanimous findings on the others is legally contested and now awaits authoritative clarification from a larger Bench of the Supreme Court.