{"id":220311,"date":"1978-11-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1978-11-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-gopal-reddy-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-22-november-1978"},"modified":"2015-05-23T00:48:42","modified_gmt":"2015-05-22T19:18:42","slug":"k-gopal-reddy-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-22-november-1978","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-gopal-reddy-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-22-november-1978","title":{"rendered":"K. Gopal Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 22 November, 1978"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
K. Gopal Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 22 November, 1978<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1979 AIR 387, \t\t 1979 SCR (2) 265<\/div>\n
Author: O C Reddy<\/div>\n
Bench: Reddy, O. Chinnappa (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nK. GOPAL REDDY\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT22\/11\/1978\n\nBENCH:\nREDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)\nBENCH:\nREDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)\nSINGH, JASWANT\n\nCITATION:\n 1979 AIR  387\t\t  1979 SCR  (2) 265\n 1979 SCC  (1) 355\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1992 SC2155\t (2,3)\n\n\nACT:\n     Supreme  Court   (Enlargement  of\t Criminal  Appellate\nJurisdiction) Act,  1970-Appellant acquitted  by trial court\non the\tground that two views were possible on the evidence-\nHigh Court  convicted and sentenced him-Appellate Court-When\ncan review evidence-\n     Words and\tphrases-  \"Proof  beyond  reasonable  doubt\"\nmeaning of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The  appellant   was  charged   with  the\t offence  of\ncommitting the murder of his wife. The trial court acquitted\nhim on\tthe  ground  that  the\tprosecution  had  failed  to\nestablish any  motive for  the offence, that the evidence of\nthe prosecution\t witnesses was\tdiscrepant, conflicting\t and\nimprobable and\tthat when  two views  were possible  on\t the\nbasis of  two divergent\t versions given\t by  the prosecution\nand the defence, the benefit of doubt should be given to the\naccused.\n     The High  Court reversed  the order  of  acquittal\t and\nconvicted and  sentenced the  appellant to  imprisonment for\nlife on\t the view  that the  trial court  had magnified\t the\nimportance to be attached to the discrepancies which were of\na minor nature\n     In appeal\tto this\t Court it was contended on behalf of\nthe appellant  that in\tall cases  where two  views  of\t the\nevidence were  possible the  accused  was  entitled  to\t the\nbenefit of doubt arising from the two views and that on this\nprinciple the High Court should not have interfered with the\norder of  acquittal merely  because another  view  was\talso\npossible.\n     Dismissing the appeal:\n^\n     HELD :  (1) Where\tthe trial  court allows itself to be\nbeset with  fanciful doubts,  rejects creditworthy  evidence\nfor slender  reasons and  takes a view of the evidence which\nis but\tbarely possible,  it is the obvious duty of the High\nCourt to  interfere in\tthe interest  of justice,  lest\t the\nadministration of justice be brought to ridicule. [370D]\n     (2) After the decision of this Court in Sanwat Singh v.\nState  of  Rajasthan  (AIR<\/a>  1961  SC  715)  this  Court\t has\nconsistently recognised\t the right of the appellate court to\nreview the entire evidence and to come to its own conclusion\nbearing in  mind the  considerations mentioned\tby the Privy\nCouncil\t in   Sheo  Swarup   v.\t Emperor   (61\tT.A.   389).\nOccasionally phrases  like  \"manifestly\t illegal\",  \"grossly\nunjust have  been used\tto describe  the orders of acquittal\nwhich warrant  interference. But  such expressions have been\nused  more  as\tflourishes  of\tlanguage  to  emphasise\t the\nreluctance of the appellate court to interfere with an order\nof acquittal  than to  curtail the  power of  the  appellate\ncourt to  review the  entire evidence and to come to its own\nconclusion. In\ttwo other cases it has been held that to the\nprinciples laid\t down in  Sanwat Singh's  case may added the\nfurther principle that if two\n364\nreasonable conclusions\tcould be reached on the basis of the\nevidence on  record the\t appellate court  should not disturb\nthe finding  of the trial court. This principle stems out of\nthe fundamental principle of our criminal jurisprudence that\nthe accused  is entitled  to the  benefit of  any reasonable\ndoubt. If  two reasonably probable and evenly balanced views\nof the\tevidence are  possible one  must necessarily concede\nthe existence of a reasonable doubt. But fanciful and remote\npossibilities must  be left  out of  account. To  entitle an\naccused person\tto the\tbenefit of  a doubt arising from the\npossibility of duality of views, the possible view in favour\nof the accused must be as nearly reasonably probable as that\nagainst him.  If the preponderance of probability is all one\nway, a bare possibility of another view will not entitle the\naccused to  claim the benefit of any doubt. It is, therefore\nessential that,\t any view  of the  evidence in favour of the\naccused must be reasonable even as any doubt, the benefit of\nwhich an  accused person  may claim,  must be  reasonable. A\nreasonable  doubt   does  not\tmean   some   light,   airy,\ninsubstantial doubt  that may  flit through  the mind  of  a\nJudge about  almost anything  at any  time or other, it does\nnot mean  a doubt  begotten by sympathy out of reluctance to\nconvict, it means a real doubt, a doubt founded upon reason.\n\"Proof beyond a reasonable doubt\" does not mean proof beyond\na shadow  of  doubt  The  law  would  fail  to\tprotect\t the\ncommunity if  it admitted  fanciful possibilities to deflect\nthe course  of justice. If the evidence is so strong against\na man  be to  leave only  a remote possibility in his favour\nwhich can  be dismissed\t with the sentence, \"of course it is\npossible but  not in the least probable,\" the case is proved\nbeyond reasonable  doubt but  nothing  short  of  that\twill\nsuffice. [369A-G]\n     Sanwat Singh  v. State  of Rajasthan,  AIR<\/a> 1961  SC 715\napplied.\n     Ramabhupala Reddy & Ors. v. The State of A.P., AIR 1971\nSC 460,\t Bhim Singh  Rup Singh\tv. State of Maharashtra, AIR<\/a>\n1974 SC\t 286, Miller  v. Minister of Pensions, [1947] 2 All.\nE.R. 372; Khem Karam & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr., 1974 SC\n1567 referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No 133
\nof 1975.\n<\/p>\n
     Appeal from  the Judgment\tand order  dated 3-2-1978 of
\nthe Andhra Pradesh High Court in Crl. A. No. 628\/73.\n<\/p>\n
     R. Nagarathnam for the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     P. Parmeswara Rao and G. N. Rao for the Respondent.
\n     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     CHINNAPPA REDDY,  J.- This\t appeal has been filed under
\nSection 2(a)  of the  Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal
\nAppellate  Jurisdiction)   Act\t1970.\tThe  appellant\t was
\nacquitted by the learned Additional Sessions judge, Chittoor
\nof an  offence under  Section 302,  Indian   Penal Code. The
\nacquittal was  reversed by  the High Court of Andhra Pradesh
\nand the\t appellant was\tconvicted under\t Section 302  Indian
\nPenal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life.\n<\/p>\n
365<\/span><\/p>\n
     The deceased Subhadramma was the wife of the appellant.
\nThey were  married about  one and  a half  years before\t the
\noccurrence. About  three months\t before the  occurrence\t the
\ndeceased gave  birth to\t a female  child in the house of the
\naccused at  Cherlopalle. After\tthe ninth day the mother and
\nchild, according  to customary\tpractice, were\ttaken by the
\nmother of  the deceased\t to  her  house\t at  Krishna  Kalva.
\nCherlopalle is\tabout  25  miles  from\tKrishna\t Kalva.\t The
\naccused used to visit his wife and often used to stay in the
\nhouse of  the deceased’s  mother. After about one and a half
\nmonths the,  accused asked his mother-in-law and brother-in-
\nlaw to send his wife to his place. They replied that she had
\nonly delivered\ta child\t recently and that she would be sent
\nto her husband’s house in the fifth month. On 18th December,
\n1972, according\t to the\t case of the prosecution the accused
\nonce again  requested his  mother-in-law to send his wife to
\nhis house.  This time  he also\tbrought with  him P.W. 8, an
\nelderly gentleman from his village. His mother-in-law P.W. 2
\ntold him  that she would send the girl in the fifth month as
\nshe had\t not yet  regained her\thealth after  delivery.\t The
\naccused and  P. W.  8 went  away. That\tevening the  accused
\nagain came  to the  house of his mother-in-law. After dinner
\nall of\tthem went  to sleep. The house consisted of only one
\nroom. The  accused, the\t deceased, her\tbrother P.W.  1, her
\nmother P.W.  2 and her grand-mother P.W. 3 were all sleeping
\nin the\troom. In  the middle  of the  night P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3
\nwere awakened  by the  cry “Amma”  raised by Subhadramma. On
\nwaking up  they saw  the accused  sitting by the side of the
\ndeceased with  a knife\tin his hand. They found the deceased
\nbleeding profusely  from the  left side of her chest. P.W. 1
\nput his\t foot on  the hand  in which the accused was holding
\nthe knife.  The accused\t dropped the  knife which  was\tthen
\npicked up by the grand-mother P.W. 3. Attracted by the cries
\nraised by  the P.Ws. 1 to 3, the neighbourers P. Ws. 4, 5, 6
\nand others  came there.\t They caught hold of the accused and
\ntied him to a pole in front of the house by means of a rope.
\nSome of\t the villagers\twho had\t gathered there\t also gave a
\nbeating to  the accused P.W.  proceeded to the house of P.W.
\n9 the  Village Munsif and reported the occurrence to him. P.
\nW. 1  affixed his  thumb impression  on the  report Ex. P. 1
\nprepared by  P. W. 9. P. W. 9 then proceeded to the house of
\nP.W. 1\twhere the blood stained knife M.O. 1 was handed over
\nto him. Thereafter, P. W. 9 prepared his own report Ex. P. 4
\nand sent  it alongwith\tEx. P.\t1 and  M.O. 1  to the Police
\nStation at  Renigunta. P. W. 14, the Sub Inspector of Police
\nregistered the\tFirst Information  Report at 5 A. M. on 19th
\nDecember,  1972\t  and  went   ahead\twith   the   further
\ninvestigation which was later taken over by the Inspector of
\nPolice P.W.  15.  When\tthe  Police  officers  went  to\t the
\nvillage, they
\n366<\/span>
\nfound the  accused tied\t to a  pole. They  arrested him\t and
\nfound that  he had  injuries on\t his person.  They  got\t him
\nexamined by  a Doctor.\tAfter holding  the inquest  the dead
\nbody  was  sent\t for  postmortem  examination.\tThe  Medical
\nOfficer, P.  W. 12  who conducted  the autopsy, found on the
\ndead body  a stab wound over the left axila 6 cms. below the
\narm pit\t 1.75 cms  x 0.5  cm. nearly  horizontal.  The\tstab
\ninjury had  gone through  the third  intercostal  space\t and
\nthrough the  upper lobe\t of the\t left lung  in an upward and
\nmedial direction.  The upper  lobe of the left lung had been
\ncut through  and through,,  and had  collapsed. P. W. 13 the
\nMedical officer\t who  examined\tthe  accused  found  several
\nabrasions and contusions on the person of the accused. There
\nwas no\tfracture. After\t completing  the  investigation\t the
\nPolice laid  a chargesheet  against the\t accused and  he was
\nduly tried.\n<\/p>\n
     The plea  of the  accused was  one of  denial.  In\t the
\nCommitting Court  the accused was content with a bare denial
\nbut in\tthe Court  of Sessions he stated that he went to the
\nhouse  of  his\tmother-in-law  at  about  10  p.m.  On\t18th
\nDecember, 1972.\t P. Ws.\t 1 and\t2 taunted him saying “we are
\nmaintaining you\t and your wife, yet you come at any time you
\nlike`’. They  insulted him. There was an altercation. P.W. 3
\nhit him\t with a\t stone near  his left  eye. P. W. 1 beat him
\nwith a stick two or three times. He felt giddy and was about
\nto lose consciousness. P. W. 1 came upon him with a knife to
\nstab him.  The deceased\t intervened and\t interposed  herself
\nbetween P.W.  1 and the accused. She received a stab injury.
\nSeeing his  wife  injured,  he\tfell  down  unconscious.  He
\nregained consciousness next morning.\n<\/p>\n
     The Learned  Sessions Judge  held that  the prosecution
\nhad failed  to establish any motive and that the evidence of
\nthe prosecution\t witnesses was\t‘discrepant, conflicting and
\nimprobable.’ He\t thought that  the prosecution\thad made  an
\nattempt to  improve its\t case which  was originally based on
\ncircumstantial evidence\t to made  it appear as if P.W. 3 had
\nalso seen  the stabbing.  He commented on the failure of the
\nPolice to seize the mat or bedding on which the deceased was
\nsleeping. He  referred to  the evidence\t of  me\t Doctor\t who
\nstated that the injury found on the deceased could have been
\ncaused even  if she was standing. The learned Sessions Judge
\nthought that when there were two divergent versions given by
\nthe prosecution\t and the  defence and  when two\t views\twere
\npossible, the  benefit of  doubt  should  be  given  to\t the
\naccused. He, therefore, acquitted the accused.\n<\/p>\n
     The High  Court reversed  the finding of acquittal. The
\nlearned Judges pointed out that there was no reason to doubt
\nthe testimony  of P.  Ws. 1  to 3 and that the discrepancies
\nnoticed by the learned Sessions
\n367<\/span>
\nJudge were  of a  minor character.  The High  Court observed
\nthat  the     learned\tSessions  Judge\t had  magnified\t the
\nimportance to  be attached  to minor discrepancies. The High
\nCourt also  concluded from  the medical evidence that it was
\nmore probable  that the\t deceased was  stabbed when  she was
\nlying down.  Accepting the  evidence of\t P. Ws. 1 to 3 which
\nwas corroborated  by the evidence of P. Ws. 4 and 5 who came
\nto the\tscene soon  afterwards, the High Court convicted the
\naccused under Section 302 and sentenced him as aforesaid.\n<\/p>\n
     In this  appeal the  learned Counsel  for the appellant
\nargued that  the accused  had no motive to kill his wife and
\nthat his  version was  more probable than the version of the
\nprosecution. He\t submitted that\t the version  of the accused
\nthat  the  occurrence  took  place  at\tabout  10  p.m.\t was
\nsubstantiated by  what was  mentioned in Ex. P. 15 the wound
\ncertificate given  by P.W. 13 the Medical officer in respect
\nof the injuries which he found on the person of the accused.
\nHe urged  that the  knife was not seized by the Police under
\nany seizure  Memo nor was the knife sent to any finger print
\nexpert. He  urged that\tat the\treasons given by the learned
\nSessions Judge\thad not\t been met by the High Court. He also
\ncontended that\ttwo views  were possible on the evidence and
\nthe accused was entitled to the benefit of doubt.\n<\/p>\n
     We have  perused the  relevant evidence  as well as the
\njudgments of  the Sessions  Judge and the High Court. We are
\nunable to find any substance in the submissions made by the,
\nlearned Counsel\t for the  appellant. The High Court was well
\njustified in  commenting that the discrepancies on the basis
\nof which  the Trial Court rejected the evidence of P. Ws. 1,
\n2 and  3 were  of a  minor character and that they have been
\nunduly\tmagnified   by\tthe   learned  Sessions\t Judge.\t The
\ndiscrepancies were in regard to which of them woke up first,
\nwhere was the lantern and which of the neighbours came first
\nto the scene on hearing their cries. The High Court was also
\nright in  holding that\tthe medical  evidence supported\t the
\nprosecution version  and not  the  defence  version.  Merely
\nbecause the  Medical Officer  stated that  the victim  could
\nhave received  the injury  if she  was standing,  it did not
\nfollow that  the injury\t could have  been  received  in\t the
\ncircumstances mentioned\t by  the  accused.  The\t injury\t was
\ninflicted with great force and its direction was upward. The
\nlocation of  the injury\t was 6 cms. below the arm pit on the
\nleft side.  According to  the accused  the deceased received
\nthe injury  when she  placed herself  between P.  W.  1\t and
\nhimself. We  do not  think that\t an  injury  of\t the  nature
\nreceived by  the deceased  could have  been  caused  in\t the
\nmanner suggested  by the  accused. The injury must have been
\ncaused in the manner suggested by the prosecution that
\n368<\/span>
\nis, when  the deceased\twas lying  on her  right side. It is
\ntrue that  the accused\tdid not have any deep motive to kill
\nthe deceased.  It is obvious that he must have been upset by
\nthe persistent\trefusal of  the brother\t and mother  of\t the
\ndeceased to  send her  with him\t to his\t house. He  probably
\nattributed the refusal to reluctance on the part of his wife
\nto accompany him straightaway. We may also refer here to the
\ncomment of  the\t learned  Counsel  for\tthe  appellant\tthat
\nrealizing  that\t  the  motive\twould  assume\tconsiderable
\nimportance if  the case\t was  one  based  on  circumstantial
\nevidence, the prosecution tried to make P. W. 3 depose as if
\nshe had\t witnessed occurrence.\tWe do  not  think  that\t the
\ncomment is  justified. P.W.  3, an  old woman  of 69  years,
\nstated in  her evidence\t that she  saw the  accused who\t was
\nsitting by  the side  of the  deceased on  the\tcot  make  a
\ngesture as  if he  was stabbing\t the deceased  and that\t the
\ndeceased cried\tout ‘Amma.’  In cross-examination she stated
\nthat she  did not  remember if\tshe had told the Police that
\nthe accused  made a  gesture  as  if  he  was  stabbing\t the
\ndeceased. The  Inspector of Police P. W. 15, however, stated
\nthat P.\t W. 3  did not\tstate before  him that\tshe saw\t the
\naccused making a gesture as if he was stabbing the deceased.
\nWe do  not think  that we will be justified in rejecting the
\nevidence of  all the  prosecution witnesses  on the basis of
\nthis statement\tof P.  W. 3.  At the  worst  the  so  called
\nimprovement made  by her may be rejected but no more. We are
\nunable to discover any good reason to reject the evidence of
\nP. Ws.\t1 to  3 or  the evidence  of P.\t Ws. 4 and 5. We are
\nafraid the  learned Sessions  Judge allowed  himself  to  be
\nassailed by  airy and fanciful doubts. We are satisfied that
\nthe High  Court was  justified in interfering with the order
\nof acquittal.\n<\/p>\n
     The learned  Counsel for  the  appellant  advanced\t the
\nusual argument\tsubmitted in  all cases\t where an  order  of
\nacquittal is  reversed, namely,\t that where two views of the
\nevidence are  possible,\t the  accused  is  entitled  to\t the
\nbenefit of  the doubt  arising from  the two  views and that
\nwhere  the  Trial  Court  has  taken  a\t possible  view\t and
\nacquitted the  accused, the  High Court should not interfere
\nwith the  order of  acquittal merely because another view is
\nalso possible.\n<\/p>\n
     The principles are now well settled. At one time it was
\nthou ht\t that an  order of  acquittal could be set aside for
\n“substantial and compelling reasons” only and Courts used to
\nlaunch on  a  search  to  discover  those  “substantial\t and
\ncompelling reasons”. However, the ‘formulae’ of “substantial
\nand  compelling\t reasons”,  “good  and\tsufficiently  cogent
\nreasons” and  “strong reasons”\tand the search for them were
\nabandoned as  a result of the pronouncement of this Court in
\nSanwat Singh  & Ors.  v. State\tof Rajasthan<\/a>(1).  In  Sanwat
\nSingh’s case, this Court harked
\n     (1) A.l.R. 1961 S.C. 715.\n<\/p>\n
369<\/span><\/p>\n
back to\t the principles\t enunciated by\tthe Privy Council in
\nSheo Swarup  v. Emperor(1) and re-affirmed those principles.
\nAfter Sanwat  Singh v.\tState of  Rajasthan,<\/a> this  Court has
\nconsistently recognised\t the right of the Appellate Court to
\nreview\tthe   entire  evidence\t and  to  come\tto  its\t own
\nconclusion, bearing  in mind the considerations mentioned by
\nthe  Privy  Council  in\t Sheo  Swarup’s\t case.\tOccasionally
\nphrases like  ‘manifestly illegal’,  grossly  unjust’,\thave
\nbeen used  to describe the orders of acquittal which warrant
\ninterference. But,  such expressions have been used more, as
\nflourishes of  language, to  emphasise the reluctance of the
\nAppellate Court to interfere with an order of acquittal than
\nto curtail  the power  of the  Appellate Court to review the
\nentire evidence\t and to\t come to its own conclusion. In some
\ncases Ramabhupala  Reddy & Ors. v The State of A.P.(2), Bhim
\nSingh Rup  Singh v. State of Maharashtra<\/a>(3) it has been said
\nthat to\t the principles laid down in Sanwat Singh’s case may
\nbe added  the further  principle  that\t“if  two  reasonable
\nconclusions can\t be reached  on the basis of the evidence on
\nrecord, the  Appellate Court  should not disturb the finding
\nof  the\t Trial\tCourt”.\t This,\tof  course,  is\t not  a\t new
\nprinciple. It stems out of the fundamental principle, of our
\ncriminal jurisprudence\tthat the  accused is entitled to the
\nbenefit of  any reasonable doubt. If two reasonably probable
\nand evenly  balanced views of the evidence are possible, one
\nmust necessarily  concede  the\texistence  of  a  reasonable
\ndoubt. But,  fanciful and  remote possibilities must be left
\nout of\taccount. To entitle an accused person to the benefit
\nof a  doubt arising  from the  possibility of  a duality  of
\nviews, the possible view in favour of the accused must be as
\nnearly reasonably  probable as\tthat  against  him.  If\t the
\npreponderance  of   probability\t is  all  one  way,  a\tbare
\npossibility of\tanother view will not entitle the accused to
\nclaim the  benefit of any doubt. It is, therefore, essential
\nthat any  view of the evidence in favour of the accused must
\nbe reasonable  even as\tany doubt,  the benefit\t of which an
\naccused person\tmay claim, must be reasonable. “A reasonable
\ndoubt”, it  has been  remarked, “does  not mean\t some light,
\nairy, insubstantial doubt that may flit through the minds of
\nany of\tus about  almost anything  at some time or other, it
\ndoes not mean a doubt begotten by sympathy out of reluctance
\nto convict;  it means  a real  doubt, a\t doubt founded\tupon
\nreason”(4).  As\t observed  by  Lord  Denning  in  Miller  v.
\nMinister of  pensions(5) “Proof\t beyond a  reasonable  doubt
\ndoes not mean proof beyond a shadow of a doubt.\n<\/p>\n
     (1) 61 I.A. 389.\n<\/p>\n
     (2) A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 460.\n<\/p>\n
     (3)  A.l.R. 1974 S.C. 286.\n<\/p>\n
     (4) Salmon J. in his charge to the jury in R. V. Fantle
\n     reported in 1959 Criminal Law Review 584.\n<\/p>\n
     (5) [1947] 2 All. E.R. 372.\n<\/p>\n
370<\/span><\/p>\n
The law\t would fail  to protect the community if it admitted
\nfanciful possibilities\tto deflect the course of justice. If
\nthe evidence  is so  strong against a man as to leave only a
\nremote possibility  in his  favour, which  can be  dismissed
\nwith the  sentence ‘of\tcourse it is possible but not in the
\nleast probable’\t the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt,
\nbut   nothing short  of that  will suffice”. In Khem Karan &
\nOrs. v. State of U.P. & Anr.<\/a>(1)., this Court observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Neither    mere    possibilities    nor    remote
\n     possibilities nor\tmere doubts which are not reasonable
\n     can, without  danger to  the administration of justice,
\n     be the  foundation\t of  the  acquittal  of\t an  accused
\n     person,  if   there  is   otherwise   fairly   credible
\n     testimony”.\n<\/p>\n
     Where the\tTrial Court  allows itself  to be beset with
\nfanciful doubts,  rejects creditworthy\tevidence for slender
\nreasons and takes a view of the evidence which is but barely
\npossible, it  is the  obvious duty  of\tthe  High  Court  to
\ninterfere   in\t the   interest\t  of   justice,\t  lest\t the
\nadministration of  justice be  brought to  ridicule. That is
\nwhat the  High Court  has done\tin this\t case. The appeal is
\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n
P. B. R.\t\t\t\t   Appeal dismissed.\n(1) A.I. R. 1974 S.C. 1567.\n371<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India K. Gopal Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 22 November, 1978 Equivalent citations: 1979 AIR 387, 1979 SCR (2) 265 Author: O C Reddy Bench: Reddy, O. Chinnappa (J) PETITIONER: K. GOPAL REDDY Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH DATE OF JUDGMENT22\/11\/1978 BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) BENCH: REDDY, O. […]<\/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-220311","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nK. Gopal Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 22 November, 1978 - 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\/k-gopal-reddy-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-22-november-1978\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K. Gopal Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 22 November, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-gopal-reddy-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-22-november-1978\" \/>\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=\"1978-11-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-22T19:18:42+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=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-gopal-reddy-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-22-november-1978#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-gopal-reddy-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-22-november-1978\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K. Gopal Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 22 November, 1978\",\"datePublished\":\"1978-11-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-22T19:18:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-gopal-reddy-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-22-november-1978\"},\"wordCount\":2823,\"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\\\/k-gopal-reddy-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-22-november-1978#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-gopal-reddy-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-22-november-1978\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-gopal-reddy-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-22-november-1978\",\"name\":\"K. Gopal Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 22 November, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1978-11-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-22T19:18:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-gopal-reddy-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-22-november-1978#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-gopal-reddy-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-22-november-1978\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-gopal-reddy-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-22-november-1978#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K. Gopal Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 22 November, 1978\"}]},{\"@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:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"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":"K. Gopal Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 22 November, 1978 - 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\/k-gopal-reddy-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-22-november-1978","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K. Gopal Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 22 November, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-gopal-reddy-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-22-november-1978","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1978-11-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-22T19:18:42+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":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-gopal-reddy-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-22-november-1978#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-gopal-reddy-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-22-november-1978"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K. Gopal Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 22 November, 1978","datePublished":"1978-11-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-22T19:18:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-gopal-reddy-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-22-november-1978"},"wordCount":2823,"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\/k-gopal-reddy-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-22-november-1978#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-gopal-reddy-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-22-november-1978","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-gopal-reddy-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-22-november-1978","name":"K. Gopal Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 22 November, 1978 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1978-11-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-22T19:18:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-gopal-reddy-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-22-november-1978#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-gopal-reddy-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-22-november-1978"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-gopal-reddy-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-22-november-1978#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K. Gopal Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 22 November, 1978"}]},{"@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:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","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\/220311","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=220311"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/220311\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=220311"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=220311"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=220311"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}