{"id":187712,"date":"2005-01-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-01-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-k-gopalakrishna-on-18-january-2005"},"modified":"2018-05-26T08:00:09","modified_gmt":"2018-05-26T02:30:09","slug":"state-of-karnataka-vs-k-gopalakrishna-on-18-january-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-k-gopalakrishna-on-18-january-2005","title":{"rendered":"State Of Karnataka vs K. Gopalakrishna on 18 January, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Karnataka vs K. Gopalakrishna on 18 January, 2005<\/div>\n
Author: B.P.Singh<\/div>\n
Bench: B.P.Singh, Arun Kumar<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  1204 of 1999\n\nPETITIONER:\nSTATE OF KARNATAKA\t\t\t \n\nRESPONDENT:\nK. GOPALAKRISHNA\t\t\t\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 18\/01\/2005\n\nBENCH:\nB.P.SINGH & ARUN KUMAR\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T <\/p>\n
B.P.SINGH, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tThis appeal by special leave has been preferred by the State
\nof Karnataka against the Judgment and Order of the High Court of
\nKarnataka at Bangalore dated December 18, 1998 in Criminal
\nAppeal No.640 of 1996 whereby the appeal preferred by the
\nrespondent herein was allowed and he was acquitted of all the
\ncharges levelled against him. The respondent was tried
\nby the Principal Sessions Judge, Belgaum in Sessions Case No.62
\nof 1994 charged of offences under Sections 302, 201 and 498A
\nIPC, and alternatively under Section 304B IPC. The learned
\nSessions Judge by his Judgment and Order dated 27.6.1996 found
\nthe respondent guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC and
\nsentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. He also found him
\nguilty of the offence under Section 201 IPC for which he was
\nsentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to
\npay a fine of Rs.1,000\/- and  in default to undergo six months’
\nsimple imprisonment. Under Section 498A IPC, the respondent
\nwas sentenced to undergo two years’ rigorous imprisonment. As
\nnoticed earlier, the High Court set aside the aforesaid Judgment
\nand Order of the Sessions Judge.\n<\/p>\n
\tAn occurrence is said to have taken place in the morning of
\n22nd November, 1993. The case of the prosecution is that the
\nrespondent strangulated to death his wife Veena and thereafter set
\nher on fire along with her infant child aged a year and a half. The respondent
\nhimself reported the matter to the local police making it appear that
\nthe deceased and her child had died in an accidental fire, but the
\npost mortem disclosed that Veena had died of throttling and not on
\naccount of burn injuries suffered by her.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe facts of the case may be briefly noticed.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe deceased Veena was the daughter of Laxmamma (PW1)
\nand was married to the respondent on June 3, 1991. Laxmamma
\n(PW1) is a resident of Shimoga while the respondent at the time of
\nhis marriage was a resident of Gundlupet. A male child was born to
\nthe couple on March 7, 1992. The case of the prosecution is that
\nthe respondent out of greed had been pressing his wife (deceased)
\nto get money from her mother so that he could start a business.
\nThere is evidence on record to indicate that the respondent then
\nwas employed in a private firm and was looking for better opportunities
\nin life. Ultimately with the help of one Mr. Umapathy who was
\nthen a Special Deputy Commissioner, and who was another son-in-
\nlaw of PW1, the respondent was able to secure the job of a
\nLecturer in the Government Pre University College at Nesargi in
\nthe district of Belgaum. On 26th July, 1993 respondent joined as a
\nlecturer in the aforesaid college and started living there. On or
\nabout 25.10.1993 he came to the house of his mother-in-law at
\nShimoga and took away his wife Veena to Nesargi. It appears that
\na sister of the deceased namely Vijaya (PW11) was to get married
\nand the betrothal ceremony was to be held on 25.10.1993 at
\nBangalore. In that connection most of the family members had
\ngone to Bangalore but some of them remained at Shimoga to look
\nafter the house. The case of the prosecution is that despite the
\nrequest made to the respondent, he refused to attend the marriage
\nceremony of Vijaya (PW11). Ultimately, the marriage of Vijaya (PW11) took place on
\n18.11.1993 with PW24 at Bangalore. Four days thereafter, on
\n22.11.1993 the occurrence took place in which Veena as well as
\nher child lost their lives. The evidence on record discloses that in
\nthe morning at about 9.30 A.M. the respondent made an oral report
\nto the Station House Officer at Nesargi to the effect that his wife
\nhad been burnt along with her child in an accidental fire. Two
\nHead Constables of police came to the place of occurrence and
\npushed the door open. They tried to extinguish the fire. It was then
\nthat they discovered that Veena and her child were both dead and
\ntheir bodies were burnt. After returning to the police station the
\nreport of the respondent was recorded which is Exhibit P-13 and
\nthereafter a case was registered as Crime No.120\/93 under Section
\n302 IPC.\n<\/p>\n
\tOn receiving the news about the incident Laxmamma (PW1),
\nthe mother of the deceased along with her son (PW2), her daughter
\n(PW11) and her son-in-law (PW24)and other relatives rushed to Nesargi
\nby car and saw the dead bodies of Veena and her child. The investigating
\nofficer (PW26) held inquest over the dead bodies of Veena and her child. He also
\nseized a plastic can lying nearby which contained some quantity of
\nkerosene oil.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe post-mortem examination of the dead body of the
\ndeceased and the child was conducted by Dr. Munyyal (PW26) and
\nanother doctor namely Dr. Chavarad (not examined) on 23.11.1993
\nbetween 10.00 A.M. and 12.30 P.M. and 12.45 P.M. and 3.00 P.M.
\nrespectively. The post-mortem reports are Exhibit P-5 and P-6.
\nAccording to the post-mortem report of Veena (deceased) Exhibit
\nP-5, her body was burnt completely except back and buttocks and
\nboth the lower limbs below knee joints. On internal examination, it
\nwas found that the cornue of hyoid bone was fractured. The
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t…7\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t-7-<\/span><\/p>\n
examination of the Larynx and Trachea disclosed that in the lumen
\nof the trachea and bronchus carbon particles were not present. Both
\nthe lungs were shrunken and pale. The time of the death was
\nestimated to be between 16 and 36 hours. The doctor further
\ncertified that after careful examination both external and internal of
\nthe dead body the cause of death was found to be asphyxia due to
\nthrottling.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the case of her child the cause of death was found to be
\nshock due to burns.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe prosecution examined a large number of witnesses to
\nprove that the respondent used to illtreat Veena and used to
\npressurise her to get money from her mother. On this aspect of the
\nmatter, the witnesses examined by the prosecution are Pws 1, 2, 3,
\n4, 5, 11, 12, 13 and 21. The prosecution also examined evidence to
\nprove that only an hour before the
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t…8\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t-8-<\/span><\/p>\n
occurrence there was a quarrel between the deceased and the
\nrespondent and soon thereafter the occurrence took place. Such
\nevidence was examined to bely the assertion of the respondent that
\nhe was not present in his house when the occurrence took place.
\nThe prosecution also relied upon the medical evidence to establish
\nthat the deceased had died on account of strangulation and was not
\nthe victim of accidental fire.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Trial Court relying upon the evidence of prosecution
\nwitnesses came to the conclusion that the respondent was ill
\ntreating his wife and was making demands of money and had  the
\nmotive to commit the offence. It further held that medical evidence
\non record clearly establish that the deceased had not died of burns
\nbut the cause of death was asphyxia caused by strangulation. It,
\ntherefore, held the <\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t…9\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t-9-<\/span><\/p>\n
appellant guilty of the offence of murder and other offences and
\nconvicted and sentenced him as earlier noticed.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe High Court has considered the evidence on record and
\nreached the conclusion that the prosecution witnesses who deposed
\nto the existence of motive were not reliable and their evidence was
\ninconsistent. PW1, the mother of the deceased deposed that the
\nrespondent had been making demands for payment of Rs.10,000\/-
\nto Rs.15,000\/- which after two years of the marriage was increased
\nto Rs.1,00,000\/-. PW2, the brother of the deceased has also
\ndeposed that the respondent had been pressing the deceased for
\nbringing Rs.50,000\/- from her mother. According to him, at
\nShimoga, just before he left for Nesargi, he had demanded a sum
\nof Rs.10,000\/-. PW3, Kamalamma is a maid servant of PW1
\nserving her family for the last 20 years. Pws 4, 5 and 12 are the
\nneighbours and family friends. They have
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t…10\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t-10-<\/span><\/p>\n
also deposed that whenever Veena came to her mother’s house she
\nused to tell them about the demands being made by the respondent
\nas also about the ill treatment meted out by him. PW4 stated that
\nthe respondent had demanded a sum of Rs.1,00,000\/- for starting a
\nbusiness, as was told to him by the deceased herself. PW5 also
\ndeposed that he was told by the deceased that she was being ill
\ntreated by the respondent and that he was asking her to get
\nRs.10,000\/- from her mother. Later on, he was pressing the
\ndeceased to bring a sum of Rs.1,00,000\/-. PW11, the younger sister
\nof the deceased namely Vijaya, stated that few months before the
\noccurrence when she was in Bangalore, the respondent had made a
\ntelephone call and had demanded Rs.25,000\/-. PW12 deposed that
\nhe did not know exactly what amount was demanded, but the
\ndeceased had complained to him about the harrasement meted out
\nto her by her husband and the constant demand of money made by
\nher husband. PW13 deposed that when the
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t…11\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t-11-<\/span><\/p>\n
respondent and the deceased were going to Nesargi, PW2, brother
\nof the deceased went to see them off at the bus stand. At that time a
\nrequest was made to the Respondent to attend the marriage of
\nVijaya (PW11) but in reply he retorted that he will send the dead
\nbody of the deceased. No doubt, PW2 does not narrate these facts,
\nbut has stated that on that occasion the respondent had demanded a
\nsum of Rs.10,000\/-. In fact, he was also told by his sister Veena
\n(deceased) that the respondent had told her that if his demands
\nwere not met, her photograph will also be kept next to the
\nphotograph of her father, meaning thereby that she will also be
\ndead and her photograph kept next to the photograph of her
\ndeceased father. PW21 also deposed that whenever the deceased
\ncame to Shimoga, she complained about her ill treatment and
\ndemand of Rs.1,00,000\/- made by the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
\tNoticing the evidence on record, the High Court opined that
\nthere was no consistency as to the exact
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t…12\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t-12-<\/span><\/p>\n
demand made by the respondent. The High Court, therefore, found
\nthe evidence of all these witnesses to be unreliable. We find this
\napproach to be wholly unreasonable. Apart from the fact that the
\nrespondent used to press the deceased to get money from her
\nmother, there is also clear evidence on record to establish the fact
\nthat she was being ill treated by the respondent. The evidence in
\nthat regard is consistent and has been deposed to by a large number
\nof witnesses, some of whom were family members and others were
\nthe residents of Shimoga and were family friends. Even as to the
\namount demanded, there could be no consistency because if the
\nrespondent demanded different amounts at different times, the
\nwitnesses could not have deposed otherwise. The evidence on
\nrecord clearly establishes the fact that the respondent had been
\nmaking demands and the quantum differed from time to time. On
\nsome occasion he had demanded Rs.10,000\/- and on other
\noccasions Rs.15,000\/- or Rs.1,00,000\/-. It appears to us wholly
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t…13\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t-13-<\/span><\/p>\n
unreasonable to reject the evidence of such witnesses merely on
\nthe ground that there is no consistency as to the exact amount
\ndemanded by the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
\tThere is yet another reason given by the High Court for
\nrejecting this part of the prosecution’s case. The High Court
\nobserved that no neighbour from Gundlepet was examined to prove
\nthe fact that the deceased was being ill treated by her husband. The
\nHigh Court completely lost sight of the fact that the matrimonial
\nhome of the deceased was at Gundlepet and therefore, it was not
\npossible for the prosecution to get witnesses from Gundlepet who
\nwould have supported the case of the prosecution. Moreover, the
\ndeceased had gone to Gundlepet as a newly married daughter-in-
\nlaw and it was not expected, even if she was ill treated, to go about
\nin the neighbourhood complaining against her husband. In any
\nevent this is not a good enough reason to reject the testimony of
\nsuch a large
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t…14\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t-14-<\/span><\/p>\n
number of witnesses who have deposed on this aspect of the case.\n<\/p>\n
\tAnother reason given by the High Court is that in Exhibit D-
\n3 a letter written by the deceased to her husband quite sometime
\nback, there is no mention of any ill treatment meted out to her by
\nthe respondent, and that no other letter has been produced to show
\nthat she had even mentioned in any such letter that she was being
\nill treated. This approach of the High Court is again highly
\nunreasonable. Merely because in one of the letters written to her
\nhusband she had not complained about ill treatment, is no ground
\nto hold that she was never ill treated. We have read that letter from
\nwhich it appears that it was one of those letters written by her in
\nwhich there is no reference to bitterness in their marital life.
\nHowever, it is not expected that in every letter that a wife writes to
\nher husband, she must complain to him about his ill
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t…15\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t-15-<\/span><\/p>\n
treatment. Merely because in one solitary letter there is no
\nreference to ill treatment by the respondent, would be no ground to
\narrive at the conclusion that she was never ill treated by her
\nhusband, particularly in the face of evidence of a large number of
\nwitnesses. We, therefore, find no justification for the finding of the
\nHigh Court that the deceased was not ill treated by the respondent,
\nor that there was no motive to commit the offence.\n<\/p>\n
\tAs far as medical evidence is concerned, the High Court
\nrejected the evidence of the doctor (PW6) who had conducted the
\npost mortem examination of the dead bodies of the deceased and
\nher child. The reasoning of the the High Court appears to us to be
\nrather strange. The High Court noticed the fact that in the post
\nmortem report the cause of death was mentioned to be asphyxia
\ndue to throttling.  While deposing in Court PW6 supported his post
\nmorterm
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t…16\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t-16-<\/span><\/p>\n
report. He asserted that the cause of death was asphyxia due to
\nthrottling, and the burns seen were post mortem burns. He further
\ndeposed that the throttling of the neck could have been done by
\nusing a rope or by any forceful action on the neck, like pressing.
\nHe further deposed that he found the burn injuries to be post
\nmortem since (i) burnt blebs were present filled with air (ii) in the
\nlumen of the trachea and bronchus carbon particles were not
\npresent and the lumen was pale. He also asserted that on account of
\nfracture of the cornue of hyoid bone and absence of carbon
\nparticles and fumes in the trachea and bronchus, he was of the
\nopinion that death of the deceased Veena was due to throttling.\n<\/p>\n
\tIf the evidence of the doctor (PW6) is fairly read, it will
\nappear that in his opinion the death was on account of asphyxia
\ncaused by throttling. This conclusion was supported by the fact that
\nthere was
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t…17\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t-17-<\/span><\/p>\n
fracture of the cornue of the hyoid bone. It is well accepted in
\nmedical jurisprudence that hyoid bone can be fractured only if it is
\npressed with great force or hit by hard substance with great force.
\nOtherwise the hyoid bone is not a bone which can be easily
\nfractured. Moreover, the absence of carbon particles and fumes in
\nthe trachea and bronchus lead to the irresistible conclusion that the
\ndeceased must have died before she was set on fire. Some amount
\nof carbon particles and fumes would have certainly been found in
\nthe trachea and bronchus if she were alive when set on fire. The
\nHigh Court, in our view, has completely misread the evidence of
\nthe doctor. Rather than considering the reasons given by the doctor
\nfor reaching the conclusion that the deceased had died of asphyxia
\ncaused by throttling, the High Court over emphasised that one part
\nof a statement made by the doctor that the throttling of the neck
\ncould have been done by using a rope, or by any forceful action on
\nthe
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t…18\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t-18-<\/span><\/p>\n
neck like pressing. The High Court completely ignored the latter
\npart of the opinion, and proceeded to examine the evidence as if in
\nthe opinion of the doctor throttling could be caused only with the
\naid of a rope. The High Court referred to the evidence on record
\nand found that there was no evidence to prove that the deceased
\nhad been strangulated with a rope. There is no evidence to prove
\nthat a rope was found anywhere near the place of occurrence. It
\nrejected the evidence of PW2, the brother of the deceased who had
\nstated that he had seen a nylon rope lying nearby. It, therefore,
\nreached the conclusion that the prosecution case was not consistent
\nwith the medical evidence on record, because no rope was found
\nwhich could substantiate the prosecution case that she had been
\nstrangulated with a rope. The High Court lost sight of the fact that
\nthere was no eye-witness of the occurrence. The medical evidence
\non record disclosed that there was a fracture of the hyoid bone of
\nthe
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t…19\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t-19-<\/span><\/p>\n
deceased and there was complete absence of carbon particles or
\nfumes in the trachea or bronchus. No doubt, the doctor stated that a
\nperson may be strangulated with the help of a rope or by pressing
\nthe neck. The doctor did not depose that this was a case where the
\ndeceased must have been strangulated with the aid of a rope,
\nbecause admittedly it is not the prosecution case that any ligature
\nmark was found. On the contrary the case of the prosecution was
\nthat she had been throttled by forceful pressing of her neck by the
\nrespondent. We are surprised that the High Court has not cared to
\neven discuss the latter part of the doctor’s opinion namely, that
\nstrangulation may result if the neck is pressed with considerable
\nforce. The High Court has not even cared to notice the fact that the
\nhyoid bone was found to be fractured and there was complete
\nabsence of carbon particles or fumes in the trachea and the
\nbronchus. This was the most crucial finding of the doctor (PW6)
\nbut
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t…20\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t-20-<\/span><\/p>\n
unfortunately this has been completely ignored. There is not a
\nword in the judgment of the High Court to satisfy us that the High
\nCourt was concious of the fact that the injuries found on the person
\nof the deceased were consistent only with the hypothesis that she
\nmust have died before she was burnt. The High Court has
\nconsidered several authorities on medical jurisprudence and has
\ncome to the conclusion that some of the features which are found
\nin the case of death by strangulation were not found in this case. It
\nis not always possible to find all the features in a given case
\nparticularly in a case where the body is burnt after killing. PW6,
\nthe doctor who conducted the post mortem examination was
\ncategoric in stating that the fracture of the hyoid bone and the
\nabsence of carbon particles and fumes in the trachea and bronchus
\ndid establish the fact that she must have died of asphyxia caused by
\nstrangulation before she was burnt. There is no reason recorded in
\nthe judgment of the
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t…21\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t-21-<\/span><\/p>\n
High Court to reject this assertion. We are of the view that these
\nfindings of the doctor are consistent only with the fact that the
\ndeceased was dead before she was burnt. In the facts of the case,
\nthe respondent having been seen in the house only little before the
\nhouse was put on fire, the evidence implicating him in the
\ncommission of the offence is conclusive. The High Court rejected
\nthe evidence of the doctor observing that there was no
\ncorroboration from surrounding circumstances, completely
\nignoring the findings of the doctor which we have discussed above.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe High Court then discussed some discrepancy about two
\ntypes of reports having been recorded in the police station. We
\nhave considered the material on record and we find that there may
\nhave been some confusion about the recording of the case in the
\npolice station because earlier an oral report had been
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t…22\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t-22-<\/span><\/p>\n
made and later a written report was made and therefore, initially a
\ncase was registered as UDR 27\/93 and another Case being
\nCr.No.120\/93 was registered later when it came to light that it was
\nnot a case of accidental fire but a case of murder, and only to
\ndestroy the evidence the deceased was set on fire.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe High Court has also made much of the fact that one of
\nthe daughters of Laxmamma (PW1) who was residing at Bangalore
\nand who was the person who had telephonically informed her
\nfriends and relatives about the death of the deceased, was not
\nexamined as a witness in this case. It does appear from the
\nevidence that she had made calls to her family members and told
\nthem that the deceased and her child had sustained burn injuries
\ndue to kerosene stove bursting. We do not attach much importance
\nto this evidence because Indu, the second daughter of PW1 who
\nwas residing at
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t…23\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t-23-<\/span><\/p>\n
Bangalore was not an eye-witness. She had come to learn about
\nburn injuries suffered by the deceased and her child and she
\nimmediately passed on that information to her mother and others.
\nThe mere fact that she had mentioned about injuries sustained by
\nbursting of kerosene stove does not help the case of the defence
\nbecause Indu passed on such information as she may have
\nreceived. Initially, the incident was sought to be made out as a case
\nof accidental fire, but it was later revealed that it was a case of
\nmurder. In this view of the matter, we do not attach any
\nsignificance to the so called discrepancy found by the High Court.
\nMoreover, the adverse inference drawn by the High court on
\naccount of non examination of Indu, in our view, is not warranted.
\nThe prosecution relied upon an extra judicial confession said to
\nhave been made by the respondent before PW7. The High Court
\nrejected the said evidence and we also do not attach much weight
\nto the alleged extra judicial confessional
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t…24\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t-24-<\/span><\/p>\n
statement made by the respondent. Nor do we attach much
\nsignificance to the fact that, according to the prosecution, the
\nrespondent was absconding. Even if the evidence in this regard is
\nignored, the remaining evidence on record clearly proves the
\ncomplicity of the respondent in the murder of his wife Veena.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe are concious of the fact that we are dealing with an
\nappeal against an order of acquittal. In such an appeal the
\nAppellate Court does not lightly disturb the findings of fact
\nrecorded by the Court below. If on the basis of the same evidence,
\ntwo views are reasonably possible, and the view favouring the
\naccused is accepted by the Court below, that is sufficient for
\nupholding the order of acquittal. However, if the Appellate Court
\ncomes to the conclusion that the findings of the Court below are
\nwholly unreasonable or perverse and not based on the evidence on
\nrecord, or suffers from serious illegality
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t…25\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t-25-<\/span><\/p>\n
including ignorance or misreading of evidence on record, the
\nAppellate Court will be justified in setting aside such an order of
\nacquittal. We find this case to fall under the latter category. We
\nfind no rational justification for the conclusion reached by the High
\nCourt. The High Court has misread the evidence on record and has
\ncompletely ignored the relevant evidence on record which was
\naccepted by the Trial Court. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set
\naside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court and
\nrestore the judgment and order of the Trial Court. The respondent
\nshall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the remainder of
\nthe sentence. His bail bonds are cancelled.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Karnataka vs K. Gopalakrishna on 18 January, 2005 Author: B.P.Singh Bench: B.P.Singh, Arun Kumar CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 1204 of 1999 PETITIONER: STATE OF KARNATAKA RESPONDENT: K. GOPALAKRISHNA DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18\/01\/2005 BENCH: B.P.SINGH & ARUN KUMAR JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T B.P.SINGH, J. This […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-187712","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Karnataka vs K. Gopalakrishna on 18 January, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-k-gopalakrishna-on-18-january-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Karnataka vs K. Gopalakrishna on 18 January, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-k-gopalakrishna-on-18-january-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2005-01-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-26T02:30:09+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-k-gopalakrishna-on-18-january-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-k-gopalakrishna-on-18-january-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Karnataka vs K. Gopalakrishna on 18 January, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-01-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-26T02:30:09+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-k-gopalakrishna-on-18-january-2005\"},\"wordCount\":4051,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-k-gopalakrishna-on-18-january-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-k-gopalakrishna-on-18-january-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-k-gopalakrishna-on-18-january-2005\",\"name\":\"State Of Karnataka vs K. Gopalakrishna on 18 January, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-01-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-26T02:30:09+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-k-gopalakrishna-on-18-january-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-k-gopalakrishna-on-18-january-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-k-gopalakrishna-on-18-january-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Karnataka vs K. Gopalakrishna on 18 January, 2005\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State Of Karnataka vs K. Gopalakrishna on 18 January, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-k-gopalakrishna-on-18-january-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Karnataka vs K. Gopalakrishna on 18 January, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-k-gopalakrishna-on-18-january-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-01-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-26T02:30:09+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-k-gopalakrishna-on-18-january-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-k-gopalakrishna-on-18-january-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Karnataka vs K. Gopalakrishna on 18 January, 2005","datePublished":"2005-01-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-26T02:30:09+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-k-gopalakrishna-on-18-january-2005"},"wordCount":4051,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-k-gopalakrishna-on-18-january-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-k-gopalakrishna-on-18-january-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-k-gopalakrishna-on-18-january-2005","name":"State Of Karnataka vs K. Gopalakrishna on 18 January, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-01-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-26T02:30:09+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-k-gopalakrishna-on-18-january-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-k-gopalakrishna-on-18-january-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-karnataka-vs-k-gopalakrishna-on-18-january-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Karnataka vs K. Gopalakrishna on 18 January, 2005"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/187712","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=187712"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/187712\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=187712"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=187712"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=187712"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}