PETITIONER:
K. GOPAL REDDY
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
DATE OF JUDGMENT22/11/1978
BENCH:
REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)
BENCH:
REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)
SINGH, JASWANT
CITATION:
1979 AIR 387 1979 SCR (2) 265
1979 SCC (1) 355
CITATOR INFO :
RF 1992 SC2155 (2,3)
ACT:
Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate
Jurisdiction) Act, 1970-Appellant acquitted by trial court
on the ground that two views were possible on the evidence-
High Court convicted and sentenced him-Appellate Court-When
can review evidence-
Words and phrases- "Proof beyond reasonable doubt"
meaning of.
HEADNOTE:
The appellant was charged with the offence of
committing the murder of his wife. The trial court acquitted
him on the ground that the prosecution had failed to
establish any motive for the offence, that the evidence of
the prosecution witnesses was discrepant, conflicting and
improbable and that when two views were possible on the
basis of two divergent versions given by the prosecution
and the defence, the benefit of doubt should be given to the
accused.
The High Court reversed the order of acquittal and
convicted and sentenced the appellant to imprisonment for
life on the view that the trial court had magnified the
importance to be attached to the discrepancies which were of
a minor nature
In appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of
the appellant that in all cases where two views of the
evidence were possible the accused was entitled to the
benefit of doubt arising from the two views and that on this
principle the High Court should not have interfered with the
order of acquittal merely because another view was also
possible.
Dismissing the appeal:
^
HELD : (1) Where the trial court allows itself to be
beset with fanciful doubts, rejects creditworthy evidence
for slender reasons and takes a view of the evidence which
is but barely possible, it is the obvious duty of the High
Court to interfere in the interest of justice, lest the
administration of justice be brought to ridicule. [370D]
(2) After the decision of this Court in Sanwat Singh v.
State of Rajasthan (AIR 1961 SC 715) this Court has
consistently recognised the right of the appellate court to
review the entire evidence and to come to its own conclusion
bearing in mind the considerations mentioned by the Privy
Council in Sheo Swarup v. Emperor (61 T.A. 389).
Occasionally phrases like "manifestly illegal", "grossly
unjust have been used to describe the orders of acquittal
which warrant interference. But such expressions have been
used more as flourishes of language to emphasise the
reluctance of the appellate court to interfere with an order
of acquittal than to curtail the power of the appellate
court to review the entire evidence and to come to its own
conclusion. In two other cases it has been held that to the
principles laid down in Sanwat Singh's case may added the
further principle that if two
364
reasonable conclusions could be reached on the basis of the
evidence on record the appellate court should not disturb
the finding of the trial court. This principle stems out of
the fundamental principle of our criminal jurisprudence that
the accused is entitled to the benefit of any reasonable
doubt. If two reasonably probable and evenly balanced views
of the evidence are possible one must necessarily concede
the existence of a reasonable doubt. But fanciful and remote
possibilities must be left out of account. To entitle an
accused person to the benefit of a doubt arising from the
possibility of duality of views, the possible view in favour
of the accused must be as nearly reasonably probable as that
against him. If the preponderance of probability is all one
way, a bare possibility of another view will not entitle the
accused to claim the benefit of any doubt. It is, therefore
essential that, any view of the evidence in favour of the
accused must be reasonable even as any doubt, the benefit of
which an accused person may claim, must be reasonable. A
reasonable doubt does not mean some light, airy,
insubstantial doubt that may flit through the mind of a
Judge about almost anything at any time or other, it does
not mean a doubt begotten by sympathy out of reluctance to
convict, it means a real doubt, a doubt founded upon reason.
"Proof beyond a reasonable doubt" does not mean proof beyond
a shadow of doubt The law would fail to protect the
community if it admitted fanciful possibilities to deflect
the course of justice. If the evidence is so strong against
a man be to leave only a remote possibility in his favour
which can be dismissed with the sentence, "of course it is
possible but not in the least probable," the case is proved
beyond reasonable doubt but nothing short of that will
suffice. [369A-G]
Sanwat Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1961 SC 715
applied.
Ramabhupala Reddy & Ors. v. The State of A.P., AIR 1971
SC 460, Bhim Singh Rup Singh v. State of Maharashtra, AIR
1974 SC 286, Miller v. Minister of Pensions, [1947] 2 All.
E.R. 372; Khem Karam & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr., 1974 SC
1567 referred to.
JUDGMENT:
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No 133
of 1975.
Appeal from the Judgment and order dated 3-2-1978 of
the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Crl. A. No. 628/73.
R. Nagarathnam for the Appellant.
P. Parmeswara Rao and G. N. Rao for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
CHINNAPPA REDDY, J.- This appeal has been filed under
Section 2(a) of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal
Appellate Jurisdiction) Act 1970. The appellant was
acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions judge, Chittoor
of an offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. The
acquittal was reversed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh
and the appellant was convicted under Section 302 Indian
Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life.
365
The deceased Subhadramma was the wife of the appellant.
They were married about one and a half years before the
occurrence. About three months before the occurrence the
deceased gave birth to a female child in the house of the
accused at Cherlopalle. After the ninth day the mother and
child, according to customary practice, were taken by the
mother of the deceased to her house at Krishna Kalva.
Cherlopalle is about 25 miles from Krishna Kalva. The
accused used to visit his wife and often used to stay in the
house of the deceased’s mother. After about one and a half
months the, accused asked his mother-in-law and brother-in-
law to send his wife to his place. They replied that she had
only delivered a child recently and that she would be sent
to her husband’s house in the fifth month. On 18th December,
1972, according to the case of the prosecution the accused
once again requested his mother-in-law to send his wife to
his house. This time he also brought with him P.W. 8, an
elderly gentleman from his village. His mother-in-law P.W. 2
told him that she would send the girl in the fifth month as
she had not yet regained her health after delivery. The
accused and P. W. 8 went away. That evening the accused
again came to the house of his mother-in-law. After dinner
all of them went to sleep. The house consisted of only one
room. The accused, the deceased, her brother P.W. 1, her
mother P.W. 2 and her grand-mother P.W. 3 were all sleeping
in the room. In the middle of the night P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3
were awakened by the cry “Amma” raised by Subhadramma. On
waking up they saw the accused sitting by the side of the
deceased with a knife in his hand. They found the deceased
bleeding profusely from the left side of her chest. P.W. 1
put his foot on the hand in which the accused was holding
the knife. The accused dropped the knife which was then
picked up by the grand-mother P.W. 3. Attracted by the cries
raised by the P.Ws. 1 to 3, the neighbourers P. Ws. 4, 5, 6
and others came there. They caught hold of the accused and
tied him to a pole in front of the house by means of a rope.
Some of the villagers who had gathered there also gave a
beating to the accused P.W. proceeded to the house of P.W.
9 the Village Munsif and reported the occurrence to him. P.
W. 1 affixed his thumb impression on the report Ex. P. 1
prepared by P. W. 9. P. W. 9 then proceeded to the house of
P.W. 1 where the blood stained knife M.O. 1 was handed over
to him. Thereafter, P. W. 9 prepared his own report Ex. P. 4
and sent it alongwith Ex. P. 1 and M.O. 1 to the Police
Station at Renigunta. P. W. 14, the Sub Inspector of Police
registered the First Information Report at 5 A. M. on 19th
December, 1972 and went ahead with the further
investigation which was later taken over by the Inspector of
Police P.W. 15. When the Police officers went to the
village, they
366
found the accused tied to a pole. They arrested him and
found that he had injuries on his person. They got him
examined by a Doctor. After holding the inquest the dead
body was sent for postmortem examination. The Medical
Officer, P. W. 12 who conducted the autopsy, found on the
dead body a stab wound over the left axila 6 cms. below the
arm pit 1.75 cms x 0.5 cm. nearly horizontal. The stab
injury had gone through the third intercostal space and
through the upper lobe of the left lung in an upward and
medial direction. The upper lobe of the left lung had been
cut through and through,, and had collapsed. P. W. 13 the
Medical officer who examined the accused found several
abrasions and contusions on the person of the accused. There
was no fracture. After completing the investigation the
Police laid a chargesheet against the accused and he was
duly tried.
The plea of the accused was one of denial. In the
Committing Court the accused was content with a bare denial
but in the Court of Sessions he stated that he went to the
house of his mother-in-law at about 10 p.m. On 18th
December, 1972. P. Ws. 1 and 2 taunted him saying “we are
maintaining you and your wife, yet you come at any time you
like`’. They insulted him. There was an altercation. P.W. 3
hit him with a stone near his left eye. P. W. 1 beat him
with a stick two or three times. He felt giddy and was about
to lose consciousness. P. W. 1 came upon him with a knife to
stab him. The deceased intervened and interposed herself
between P.W. 1 and the accused. She received a stab injury.
Seeing his wife injured, he fell down unconscious. He
regained consciousness next morning.
The Learned Sessions Judge held that the prosecution
had failed to establish any motive and that the evidence of
the prosecution witnesses was ‘discrepant, conflicting and
improbable.’ He thought that the prosecution had made an
attempt to improve its case which was originally based on
circumstantial evidence to made it appear as if P.W. 3 had
also seen the stabbing. He commented on the failure of the
Police to seize the mat or bedding on which the deceased was
sleeping. He referred to the evidence of me Doctor who
stated that the injury found on the deceased could have been
caused even if she was standing. The learned Sessions Judge
thought that when there were two divergent versions given by
the prosecution and the defence and when two views were
possible, the benefit of doubt should be given to the
accused. He, therefore, acquitted the accused.
The High Court reversed the finding of acquittal. The
learned Judges pointed out that there was no reason to doubt
the testimony of P. Ws. 1 to 3 and that the discrepancies
noticed by the learned Sessions
367
Judge were of a minor character. The High Court observed
that the learned Sessions Judge had magnified the
importance to be attached to minor discrepancies. The High
Court also concluded from the medical evidence that it was
more probable that the deceased was stabbed when she was
lying down. Accepting the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3 which
was corroborated by the evidence of P. Ws. 4 and 5 who came
to the scene soon afterwards, the High Court convicted the
accused under Section 302 and sentenced him as aforesaid.
In this appeal the learned Counsel for the appellant
argued that the accused had no motive to kill his wife and
that his version was more probable than the version of the
prosecution. He submitted that the version of the accused
that the occurrence took place at about 10 p.m. was
substantiated by what was mentioned in Ex. P. 15 the wound
certificate given by P.W. 13 the Medical officer in respect
of the injuries which he found on the person of the accused.
He urged that the knife was not seized by the Police under
any seizure Memo nor was the knife sent to any finger print
expert. He urged that at the reasons given by the learned
Sessions Judge had not been met by the High Court. He also
contended that two views were possible on the evidence and
the accused was entitled to the benefit of doubt.
We have perused the relevant evidence as well as the
judgments of the Sessions Judge and the High Court. We are
unable to find any substance in the submissions made by the,
learned Counsel for the appellant. The High Court was well
justified in commenting that the discrepancies on the basis
of which the Trial Court rejected the evidence of P. Ws. 1,
2 and 3 were of a minor character and that they have been
unduly magnified by the learned Sessions Judge. The
discrepancies were in regard to which of them woke up first,
where was the lantern and which of the neighbours came first
to the scene on hearing their cries. The High Court was also
right in holding that the medical evidence supported the
prosecution version and not the defence version. Merely
because the Medical Officer stated that the victim could
have received the injury if she was standing, it did not
follow that the injury could have been received in the
circumstances mentioned by the accused. The injury was
inflicted with great force and its direction was upward. The
location of the injury was 6 cms. below the arm pit on the
left side. According to the accused the deceased received
the injury when she placed herself between P. W. 1 and
himself. We do not think that an injury of the nature
received by the deceased could have been caused in the
manner suggested by the accused. The injury must have been
caused in the manner suggested by the prosecution that
368
is, when the deceased was lying on her right side. It is
true that the accused did not have any deep motive to kill
the deceased. It is obvious that he must have been upset by
the persistent refusal of the brother and mother of the
deceased to send her with him to his house. He probably
attributed the refusal to reluctance on the part of his wife
to accompany him straightaway. We may also refer here to the
comment of the learned Counsel for the appellant that
realizing that the motive would assume considerable
importance if the case was one based on circumstantial
evidence, the prosecution tried to make P. W. 3 depose as if
she had witnessed occurrence. We do not think that the
comment is justified. P.W. 3, an old woman of 69 years,
stated in her evidence that she saw the accused who was
sitting by the side of the deceased on the cot make a
gesture as if he was stabbing the deceased and that the
deceased cried out ‘Amma.’ In cross-examination she stated
that she did not remember if she had told the Police that
the accused made a gesture as if he was stabbing the
deceased. The Inspector of Police P. W. 15, however, stated
that P. W. 3 did not state before him that she saw the
accused making a gesture as if he was stabbing the deceased.
We do not think that we will be justified in rejecting the
evidence of all the prosecution witnesses on the basis of
this statement of P. W. 3. At the worst the so called
improvement made by her may be rejected but no more. We are
unable to discover any good reason to reject the evidence of
P. Ws. 1 to 3 or the evidence of P. Ws. 4 and 5. We are
afraid the learned Sessions Judge allowed himself to be
assailed by airy and fanciful doubts. We are satisfied that
the High Court was justified in interfering with the order
of acquittal.
The learned Counsel for the appellant advanced the
usual argument submitted in all cases where an order of
acquittal is reversed, namely, that where two views of the
evidence are possible, the accused is entitled to the
benefit of the doubt arising from the two views and that
where the Trial Court has taken a possible view and
acquitted the accused, the High Court should not interfere
with the order of acquittal merely because another view is
also possible.
The principles are now well settled. At one time it was
thou ht that an order of acquittal could be set aside for
“substantial and compelling reasons” only and Courts used to
launch on a search to discover those “substantial and
compelling reasons”. However, the ‘formulae’ of “substantial
and compelling reasons”, “good and sufficiently cogent
reasons” and “strong reasons” and the search for them were
abandoned as a result of the pronouncement of this Court in
Sanwat Singh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan(1). In Sanwat
Singh’s case, this Court harked
(1) A.l.R. 1961 S.C. 715.
369
back to the principles enunciated by the Privy Council in
Sheo Swarup v. Emperor(1) and re-affirmed those principles.
After Sanwat Singh v. State of Rajasthan, this Court has
consistently recognised the right of the Appellate Court to
review the entire evidence and to come to its own
conclusion, bearing in mind the considerations mentioned by
the Privy Council in Sheo Swarup’s case. Occasionally
phrases like ‘manifestly illegal’, grossly unjust’, have
been used to describe the orders of acquittal which warrant
interference. But, such expressions have been used more, as
flourishes of language, to emphasise the reluctance of the
Appellate Court to interfere with an order of acquittal than
to curtail the power of the Appellate Court to review the
entire evidence and to come to its own conclusion. In some
cases Ramabhupala Reddy & Ors. v The State of A.P.(2), Bhim
Singh Rup Singh v. State of Maharashtra(3) it has been said
that to the principles laid down in Sanwat Singh’s case may
be added the further principle that “if two reasonable
conclusions can be reached on the basis of the evidence on
record, the Appellate Court should not disturb the finding
of the Trial Court”. This, of course, is not a new
principle. It stems out of the fundamental principle, of our
criminal jurisprudence that the accused is entitled to the
benefit of any reasonable doubt. If two reasonably probable
and evenly balanced views of the evidence are possible, one
must necessarily concede the existence of a reasonable
doubt. But, fanciful and remote possibilities must be left
out of account. To entitle an accused person to the benefit
of a doubt arising from the possibility of a duality of
views, the possible view in favour of the accused must be as
nearly reasonably probable as that against him. If the
preponderance of probability is all one way, a bare
possibility of another view will not entitle the accused to
claim the benefit of any doubt. It is, therefore, essential
that any view of the evidence in favour of the accused must
be reasonable even as any doubt, the benefit of which an
accused person may claim, must be reasonable. “A reasonable
doubt”, it has been remarked, “does not mean some light,
airy, insubstantial doubt that may flit through the minds of
any of us about almost anything at some time or other, it
does not mean a doubt begotten by sympathy out of reluctance
to convict; it means a real doubt, a doubt founded upon
reason”(4). As observed by Lord Denning in Miller v.
Minister of pensions(5) “Proof beyond a reasonable doubt
does not mean proof beyond a shadow of a doubt.
(1) 61 I.A. 389.
(2) A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 460.
(3) A.l.R. 1974 S.C. 286.
(4) Salmon J. in his charge to the jury in R. V. Fantle
reported in 1959 Criminal Law Review 584.
(5) [1947] 2 All. E.R. 372.
370
The law would fail to protect the community if it admitted
fanciful possibilities to deflect the course of justice. If
the evidence is so strong against a man as to leave only a
remote possibility in his favour, which can be dismissed
with the sentence ‘of course it is possible but not in the
least probable’ the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt,
but nothing short of that will suffice”. In Khem Karan &
Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr.(1)., this Court observed:
“Neither mere possibilities nor remote
possibilities nor mere doubts which are not reasonable
can, without danger to the administration of justice,
be the foundation of the acquittal of an accused
person, if there is otherwise fairly credible
testimony”.
Where the Trial Court allows itself to be beset with
fanciful doubts, rejects creditworthy evidence for slender
reasons and takes a view of the evidence which is but barely
possible, it is the obvious duty of the High Court to
interfere in the interest of justice, lest the
administration of justice be brought to ridicule. That is
what the High Court has done in this case. The appeal is
dismissed.
P. B. R. Appeal dismissed.
(1) A.I. R. 1974 S.C. 1567.
371