Legal Analysis: Dr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others

Citation: 2026 INSC 632

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Division Bench Justice Satish Chandra Sharma & Justice Dipankar Datta

Date of Decision: June 9, 2026

Nature of Judgment: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 8760 of 2018 and SLP (Crl.) No. 6910 of 2019 against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 22nd March 2018.

Synopsis of the Judgment

The appeals arose from a composite criminal appeal filed by three brothers (Anil, Ajay and Atul Rastogi) against their conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court was divided: one Judge upheld the conviction of all three, the other Judge acquitted Atul but upheld the conviction of Anil and Ajay. The matter was referred to a third Judge under Section 392 CrPC. The third Judge, instead of limiting himself to the point of disagreement (Atul), independently examined the entire case and acquitted all three brothers, including Anil and Ajay on whose conviction the two Judges had unanimously agreed. The complainant and the State appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the third Judge exceeded his jurisdiction. Interpreting Section 392 CrPC, the Court held that: (i) the reference under Section 392 is limited only to the appeal of the accused in respect of whom there was a division of opinion; (ii) where there is unanimous agreement on the conviction of other accused, their appeal stands dismissed and cannot be reopened by the third Judge; (iii) the decision in Sajjan Singh v. State of M.P. (1999) 1 SCC 315, which held that the third Judge can examine the whole case independently, was doubted and referred to a larger Bench for reconsideration. The appeals were kept pending awaiting the opinion of the larger Bench.

1. Basic Information of the Judgment

Case Title: Dr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (with State of U.P. v. Anil Rastogi and Others)

Citation: 2026 INSC 632

Criminal Appeal Nos.: 2372/2026 and 2373/2026 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 8760/2018 and 6910/2019)

Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta & Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

Date of Decision: June 9, 2026

Court: Supreme Court of India (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)

Impugned Order: Judgment and order dated 22nd March 2018 of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, disposing of Criminal Appeal No. 60 of 2001 as the third Judge, acquitting all three accused.

2. Legal Framework

Major Laws and Provisions Involved

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 374(2) (appeal to High Court from conviction by Sessions Judge), Section 378 (appeal against acquittal), Section 392 (procedure when Judges of Court of Appeal are equally divided – reference to third Judge, proviso for larger Bench), Section 429 (the corresponding provision in the 1898 Code).

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 – Section 429 (procedure where Judges equally divided – "the case" with their opinions laid before another Judge).

• Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 148, 149, 302.

• Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 14 (equality before law – argument tha

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.