Dr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs State of Uttar Pradesh 2026 INSC 632 S.392 CrPC -Sajjan Singh - Referred to Larger Bench

CrPC - Section 392 - The scope of a third Judge’s powers under Section 392 CrPC - Whether the third Judge may reopen issues unanimously decided by the original Division Bench ? - Sajjan Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh is not an authority on the construction of “an appeal” vis-à-vis “the appeal” found in Section 392 - Referred to larger bench.

CrPC - Section 392 - The options open for the referee Judge, when seized of a reference under section 392 are not too wide. If a Judge of a Bench of two-Judges, while hearing an appeal, is inclined to maintain a conviction while the other Judge is not so inclined, the third Judge may accept either opinion and it is the third Judge’s opinion that the statute requires to be placed before the Division Bench for rendering the final judgment. It could also happen, that the third Judge declines to agree with the view of either the presiding Judge of the Bench (in maintaining the conviction but commuting death sentence to life imprisonment) or the view of the companion Judge on the Bench (acquitting the convict). If the third Judge is of the considered view, for the reasons assigned, that additional evidence is required to be received under Section 391 in the manner stipulated to rectify irregularity, not being an incurable defect going to the root of the case, before the conviction is either maintained or reversed, that is an available course of action. (Para 9)