Supreme Court larger Bench to examine scope of tie-breaker judge's powers in split verdict cases

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court has referred to a larger Bench a question concerning the extent of powers given to judge tasked with being the 'tie-breaker' in cases where a two-judge Bench of the Court has arrived at a split verdict on limited issues [Dr Rakesh Gupta Vs State of UP].

A larger Bench of the top court will examine whether the third 'tie-breaker' judge can reverse even unanimous findings of the earlier Division Bench in such split verdict cases.

Notably, in the 1998 Sajjan Singh v State of Madhya Pradesh ruling, the Supreme Court had held that in split verdict references, a tie-breaker judge is not bound by the opinions of the earlier Division Bench and is expected to examine the whole of the case independently.

However, on Tuesday, a Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma expressed reservations over mechanically applying such a view in all cases.

It has, therefore, referred the question of whether the principles in Sajjan Singh lays down the correct law to a larger Bench.

"While recording our respectful disagreement with the view expressed in Sajjan Singh (supra), we refer the question as to whether Sajjan Singh (supra) lays down correct law for decision to a larger Bench of such strength, as the Hon’ble the Chief Justice may constitute," the Court said.

The issue arose from a 2018 Allahabad High Court ruling delivered by then High Court judge Justice Vikram Nath (now a sitting Supreme Court judge).

The case concerned three brothers, Anil Rastogi, Ajay Rastogi and Atul Rastogi, who were convicted by a Lucknow trial court in 2001 for murder and sentenced to life imprisonment.

On appeal, a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court delivered separate opinions in 2006. One of the judges, Justice Bhanwar Singh upheld the conviction of Anil and Ajay but acquitted Atul. The second judge, Justice Devi Prasad Singh upheld the conviction of all three.

Since there was disagreement only on Atul’s conviction, the matter was placed before a third judge under Section 392 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

By a verdict pronounced in 2018, Justice Nath acquitted all three brothers in the 1991 murder case, including two whose conviction had been upheld by both judges of the Division Bench.

The complainant, Dr Rakesh Kumar Gupta, and the State of Uttar Pradesh challenged the acquittals before the Supreme Court.

Before the top court, the complainant argued that the third judge could not reopen findings on which there was no disagreement.

The appeal was opposed by Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, appearing for the brothers. He relied on Sajjan Singh to argue that the third judge could examine the entire case.

The Supreme Court, however, said that while Justice Nath’s approach found support from Sajjan Singh, the correctness of that precedent required reconsideration.

It opined that a mechanical application of Sajjan Singh could lead to anomalous results, including a third judge reversing findings unanimously reached by two judges.

“A mechanical application of the law laid down in Sajjan Singh would render these integral components of a just and fair criminal justice delivery system redundant,” the Court said.

The Court, therefore, referred the issue to a larger Bench to be constituted by the Chief Justice of India.

The State of UP was represented by Advocate Chandrika Misra

[Read Judgment]