Supreme Court Doubts 'Sajjan Singh' Ruling; Refers To Larger Bench Whether Third Judge Can Re-examine Unanimous Findings Under Section 392 CrPC

"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," Supreme Court, in a significant order, has expressed "respectful disagreement" with the 1999 judgment in Sajjan Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, referring the scope of Section 392 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to a larger bench.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma observed that allowing a referee judge to re-examine findings where a Division Bench was already unanimous could lead to "irrational, anomalous, and undesirable results."

The case originated from a criminal trial where three brothers—Anil, Ajay, and Atul—were convicted of murder. In the High Court, a Division Bench delivered a split verdict regarding Atul’s acquittal, while both judges concurrently upheld the convictions of Anil and Ajay. When the matter was referred to a third Judge under Section 392 CrPC, the referee Judge proceeded to acquit all three siblings, including the two whose convictions were unanimously affirmed by the previous bench.

Primary Legal Issues Before The Court

The primary question before the court was whether a third Judge, on a reference under Section 392 CrPC, is empowered to differ with conclusions unanimously reached by both Judges of the Division Bench. The court also examined if such a Judge must deliver an opinion agreeing with one of the two previous opinions or if they can provide a completely divergent view on the entire appeal.

Distinction Between 'The Case' and 'The Appeal'

The Supreme Court highlighted a significant shift in phraseology between Section 429 of the 1898 Code and Section 392 of the 1973 Code. While the old law required "the case" to be laid before another judge, the current statute specifies that "the appeal" shall be so laid. The bench noted that this change is not merely cosmetic but carries substantial legal weight in determining the scope of the third Judge’s jurisdiction.

Court Analyzes Grammatical Construction Of Section 392

Adverting to the rules of English grammar, the court noted that Section 392 uses the indefinite article "an appeal" to trigger the provision and the definite article "the appeal" to refer back to it. The bench reasoned that "the appeal" must be construed as the specific appeal where the division of opinion actually occurred. This interpretation suggests that the third Judge’s review should be restricted to the points of disagreement rather than the entire case.

"The indefinite article sets up the class, the definite article picks out the individual instance from that class. In the context of ‘an appeal’ in Section 392, the words refer to ‘an appeal’ that fits the situation described whereas ‘the appeal’ is referable to the same appeal just spoken of."

Anomalies In Reversing Unanimous Findings

The court expressed concern that the ruling in Sajjan Singh (1999), which allows a third Judge to examine the whole case independently, could create a "fortuitous circumstance" for litigants. It observed that if three convicts file separate appeals and two are dismissed unanimously, those convicts cannot benefit from a third Judge's review of a third convict's split verdict. However, in a composite appeal, all three could potentially be acquitted by a third Judge.

Potential Breach Of Article 14 Equality

The bench remarked that such an approach results in discrimination between convicts who file composite appeals and those who file separate ones, potentially breaching Article 14 of the Constitution. The court emphasized that a litigant should not be able to take advantage of the "fortuitous circumstance" of filing a single memorandum of appeal for multiple persons to reopen settled concurrent findings of guilt.

"Would the approach not result in derivation of an advantage by those filing a composite appeal on the one hand and disadvantage for those convicts who choose to file separate appeals and not a composite appeal? Is it not discrimination, breaching Article 14 of the Constitution?"

Sajjan Singh Failed To Consider Anaphoric Use Of Articles

In its critique of the Sajjan Singh precedent, the court noted that the previous coordinate bench did not advert to the anaphoric use of the definite article in the statute. Consequently, the court found the 1999 judgment distinguishable on the point of statutory interpretation. The bench stressed that judicial discipline and comity require a deeper study of these issues by a larger bench of appropriate strength.

Case Referred To Chief Justice For Larger Bench

Concluding that the current interpretation leads to undesirable results where a third Judge could reverse a unanimous acquittal or conviction, the court formally referred the matter to the Chief Justice of India. The bench chose to reserve its final answers on the formulated legal questions until a larger bench clarifies whether Sajjan Singh continues to lay down the correct law for references under Section 392 CrPC.

"Accepting the reasoning in Sajjan Singh could work out irrational, anomalous and undesirable results... This situation, in our view, does not appear to have been visualised by the coordinate Bench in Sajjan Singh."

Date of Decision: June 09, 2026