Back
Breaking the Tie: Supreme Court Re-examines the Reach of the 'Third Judge' in Split Verdicts
In a significant move that could reshape the dynamics of procedures, the has formally questioned the interpretation of . A Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma has referred the issue of whether a 'third judge' (the ) in a case possesses unbridled power to reverse even those findings where the original was unanimous.
The Genesis of the Dispute
The legal challenge stems from a murder case ( Case Crime No.120/ ), in which the Rastogi siblings were convicted by a Sessions Court. When the case reached the , a delivered a regarding the of one sibling, while concurring on the of the others.
The matter was placed before a third judge, who not only resolved the disagreement but went further to overturn the convictions that the previous two judges had already unanimously affirmed. This sweeping reversal prompted the State and the complainant to approach the Supreme Court, challenging the scope of the third judge's jurisdiction.
The Core Legal Conflict: Anaphora or Autonomy?
The appellants argued that the power of the third judge must be "structured" and centered on the precise point of disagreement. Conversely, respondents relied heavily on the precedent set in Sajjan Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (), which posits that the third judge functions independently and is not bound by any part of the ’s findings, theoretically authorizing a complete re-examination of the entire case.
The Supreme Court bench expressed deep reservations about this broad interpretation, noting that it could lead to anomalous results, such as a third judge overturning an that two other judges had already agreed upon. The Court emphasized the "anaphoric" linguistic construction of Section 392, suggesting that the legislature intended for the judge to address only the specific appeal where the division of opinion occurred.
Key Observations
Highlighting the gravity of the decision, the Court’s order contained several pivotal reflections:
"The third Judge can or will deal with the whole case and therefore the third learned Judge is altogether uninhibited in resolving the difference. The Parliament did not intend to make any departure from the legal position resolved by the Highest Judicial Authority..."— (cited in arguments).
"The indefinite article sets up the class, the definite article picks out the individual instance from that class... ‘The appeal’ narrows to the specific appeal where such division has occurred."— Justice Dipankar Datta, reflecting on of Section 392.
"A mechanical application of the law laid down in Sajjan Singh (supra) would render these integral components [ , and ] of a just and fair redundant."
A Call for a Larger Bench
Acknowledging that Sajjan Singh has held the field for over twenty-five years, the Court opted for judicial prudence rather than an immediate overhaul. By referring to a larger Bench, the Court seeks an authoritative clarification on whether the Sajjan Singh ruling remains legally sound in contemporary jurisprudence.
For the legal community, this case is a reminder that even procedural statutes can harbor profound questions of constitutional fairness. Until a larger Bench intervenes, the limits of a third judge’s power remain at a critical intersection of and the in criminal trials.
As noted by sources following the proceedings, the outcome will essentially determine whether the "referral" process remains a narrow tool for resolving deadlock, or an expansive mechanism that allows for .
Status : Referred to a Larger Bench. Keywords : Section 392 CrPC, Split Verdicts, Appellate Review, Judicial Precedent.
