Dr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta (complainant) and the State of Uttar Pradesh separately challenged a 2018 Allahabad High Court judgment in which a referee (third) Judge, while resolving a split opinion of a Division Bench regarding one of three accused siblings (the Rastogi brothers), went beyond his limited mandate and also reversed the Division Bench's unanimous conviction of the other two siblings (Anil and Ajay) for murder under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC, thereby acquitting all three. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether a third Judge appointed under Section 392 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to resolve a difference of opinion is confined only to the point of disagreement between the Division Bench judges, or whether he may re-examine the entire case including matters on which the Division Bench was unanimous. The Supreme Court heard arguments tracing the historical evolution of the provision from Section 429 of the 1898 Code through various High Court and Supreme Court precedents, with the complainant also urging reconsideration of the earlier Supreme Court decision in Sajjan Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh. The judgment text provided does not record a final conclusion, as the matter was still under consideration.