The Supreme Court has referred a significant question on the powers of a “tie-breaker” judge to a larger Bench, opening the door for a fresh examination of how split verdict cases should be handled within the judicial system.
The issue centres on situations where a two-judge Bench agrees on certain findings but differs on a limited aspect of a case. The larger Bench will now determine whether a third judge, brought in to resolve that disagreement, can revisit and overturn conclusions on which the original judges were unanimous.
The reference arose during proceedings in Dr Rakesh Gupta v State of Uttar Pradesh, where a Bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma expressed doubts about the continued application of a 1998 ruling in Sajjan Singh v State of Madhya Pradesh.
That judgment had held that a judge tasked with resolving a split verdict is not confined to the points of disagreement and may independently assess the entire case. The Court, however, observed that applying such a principle without qualification could produce unusual outcomes, including the possibility of a third judge undoing findings unanimously reached by the first two judges.
Recording its disagreement with the earlier precedent, the Bench referred the question to a larger Bench to determine whether the law laid down in Sajjan Singh remains correct.
The controversy traces its roots to a murder case involving three brothers — Anil Rastogi, Ajay Rastogi and Atul Rastogi — who were convicted by a Lucknow trial court in 2001 and sentenced to life imprisonment.
When the matter reached the Allahabad High Court, the Division Bench delivered separate opinions. One judge upheld the convictions of Anil and Ajay while acquitting Atul. The other judge found all three brothers guilty. Because the divergence related only to Atul’s conviction, the matter was placed before a third judge under Section 392 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
In a 2018 judgment, the third judge acquitted not only Atul but also Anil and Ajay, despite both members of the original Division Bench having agreed on their guilt.
The acquittals were challenged before the Supreme Court by the complainant and the Uttar Pradesh government. It was argued that the third judge had exceeded the scope of the reference by reopening issues on which there had been no disagreement.
The defence countered that the 1998 Sajjan Singh ruling empowered the third judge to examine the entire record and arrive at an independent conclusion.
While acknowledging that the 2018 decision drew support from the existing precedent, the Supreme Court indicated that the broader implications of that interpretation warranted closer scrutiny. The Bench noted that an unrestricted reading of the earlier ruling could undermine important safeguards within the criminal justice process.
With the matter now placed before a larger Bench, the Supreme Court is set to revisit a question that could shape the handling of split verdicts and define the precise limits of a tie-breaker judge’s authority in criminal appeals.
