Third Judge reference under criminal procedure covers the entire case and the opinion binds final disposal.

Section 429 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 was construed to mean that a reference to a third Judge concerns the entire case of the concerned accused, not merely the narrow point on which the earlier Judges differed. The third Judge may therefore examine all points necessary for disposal, and his opinion governs the final result even if it departs from matters not expressly isolated in the reference. On the facts stated, the Court also found that the convictions under Section 323 IPC could not be sustained because the appellants were acting in private defence at least at the initial stage and no distinct personal responsibility for the hurt was established. The convictions and sentences were set aside and the appellants were acquitted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, under Section 429 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, the third Judge could confine himself only to the precise point of disagreement or could consider the whole case of the appellant on the reference; (ii) whether the third Judge's opinion, even on a matter not expressly left open in the referring order, bound the Division Bench; (iii) whether the convictions under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 could be sustained.

Issue (i): Whether, under Section 429 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, the third Judge could confine himself only to the precise point of disagreement or could consider the whole case of the appellant on the reference.

Analysis: The expression "the case" in Section 429 was construed to mean the entire case of the concerned accused, not merely the narrow question on which the two Judges differed. The Court examined the scheme of the provision and the purpose of reference to a third Judge, holding that the third Judge is required to deliver an opinion on the case referred and may consider all points necessary to resolve the appeal for that accused.

Conclusion: The third Judge was competent to consider the whole case of the appellants, not merely the isolated point of disagreement.

Issue (ii): Whether the third Judge's opinion, even on a matter not expressly left open in the referring order, bound the Division Bench.

Analysis: The Court held that Section 429 makes the judgment or order follow the opinion of the third Judge. The opinion is not confined to agreeing with one of the earlier Judges, and where the case of a particular appellant is referred, the third Judge's conclusion on that appellant governs the final disposal. The earlier agreement between the referring Judges on one aspect did not exclude the third Judge from reaching a different conclusion on the final disposition of the case.

Conclusion: The opinion of the third Judge was binding on the Division Bench and could determine the final result for the appellants.

Issue (iii): Whether the convictions under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 could be sustained.

Analysis: On the facts found, the appellants acted in the exercise of the right of private defence at least during the initial stage of the occurrence, and the evidence did not establish any distinct personal responsibility for the hurt to Mitthu after the fall of Bhajan Lal. The Court also treated the absence of a sustainable charge-based foundation as fatal to sustaining the conviction on the record as it stood.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 323 could not be sustained and the appellants were entitled to acquittal on that count as well.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded in full, the convictions and sentences were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted of all charges.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 429 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, the reference to a third Judge concerns the entire case of the concerned appellant, and the third Judge's opinion is binding for final disposal of that case.

---