Breaking SUPREME COURT REAFFIRMS PUBLIC DOMAIN PROTECTION FOR DIGITAL LAWS
New Delhi · Sunday, 13 September 2026 9888666310 | [email protected]
Free Law - free judgments and free headnotes Free Lawby De Jure
Supreme Court of India 2026-06-09 partly_allowed

Dr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors

Bench: 2 — Dipankar Datta, Satish Chandra Sharma

In Brief

In a murder case involving three brothers, the Allahabad High Court's Division Bench split on whether one brother was guilty while unanimously convicting the other two. Under Section 392 CrPC, a referee judge was appointed to break the tie. The referee judge acquitted all three, overturning the concurrent guilty findings on two brothers. The Supreme Court held that a referee judge cannot disturb unanimous findings on co-accused when reviewing a composite appeal. The Court distinguished Section 392 (1973) from its 1898 predecessor based on statutory language, noting that only the specific appeal where disagreement occurred should be referred. The judgment emphasizes judicial discipline and procedural fairness, referring the precedent Sajjan Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh to a larger bench for reconsideration.

The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.

Criminal Procedure Appellate Procedure Code of Criminal Procedure Section 392 Judicial Review Constitutional Law - Article 14 Composite Appeals Referee Judge Jurisdiction Concurrent Findings Judicial Comity Statutory Interpretation

Read the full judgment & headnote. It's free.

Register to read the complete Supreme Court judgment text and the headnote, and to search 1 lakh+ Supreme Court judgments by meaning. It is a free service.

Register Free Login