In the instant case, the Supreme Court had to consider that the punishment inflicted by the subordinate courts on the appellant were to be allowed partly or completely.
The case briefly revolved around the appellant who was having a fancy on the sister of the deceased but the interference and control of the latter made it nearly impossible for the appellant to marry the sister of the deceased.

The case also led the Hon'ble court to comment on the important phenomenon of Evidence Law i.e. the Plea of Alibi, a defense taken up by the appellant when he was arrested but was not able to prove.

The court also found some defects in the testimonies of the prosecution witness which helped the court in effectively deciding the punishment of the appellant.

Petitioner: Dudh Nath Pandey v/s Respondent: State Of U.P.

Citation: 1981 Scc (2) 166
Date Of Judgement: February 11, 1981 - Court: Supreme Court Of India
Bench: Hon'ble Cj V.Y.Chandrachud & Justice A.P. Sen

Facts:

• Vijay Ban Kishore, alias Pappoo, alias the deceased, was the only male support to three of his sisters, among whom the youngest was married while the other two sisters were the teachers, and his widowed mother.
• Ranjana Kishore, the sister of deceased, was the teacher at St. Anthony's Convent.
• Dhudh Nath Pandey, the appellant who was a motor car driver by occupation, was the tenant at the deceased's house. He developed a fancy for the sister of deceased since she was 20 years old and when he came to live with them as a tenant.
• Deceased, being only the male protector of the family, decided to protect his sister due to which he turned the appellant out of his house. But, the appellant filed an application before the City Magistrate, Allahabad to transfer the custody of the sister to him as they were legally wedded. However, Ranjana denied this claim leading to dismissal of the application by the court.
• Next, the appellant filed a habeas corpus petition in the Allahabad High Court stating that Ranjana was detained forcefully and that she should be released. However, this claim was also denied by her and the application was dismissed on November 8, 1973.
• Later, on August 1, 1975, the principal of St. Anthony's Convent filed a complaint that appellant had made indecent overtures to Ranjana, which led to his arrest.
• Later, appellant was also seen threatening the deceased for becoming a hurdle in his way to Ranjana, due to which the deceased made sure to escort Ranjana daily to her school.
• The next day, when deceased was coming back after dropping Ranjana at school, it was alleged that appellant fired at the deceased with a country-made pistol near the Hathi Park, a popular children's park, which led to his instant death.
• The incident was witnessed by Harish Chandra, househelp of the deceased, and his friend Ashok Kumar who were also present at the park and who immediately informed his sister about the same.
• The sister immediately came to the crime scene and after witnessing her brother's condition, went to the police station to file an FIR against the appellant.

Arguments by Petitioner:

• The appellant contended that he was not a tenant at the deceased's house but was a guest of the family and that Ranjana had intimated with him during that stay. He claimed he left the house on the warning of Ranjana about a threat to his life.
• He denied his involvement in the murder of the deceased and instead blamed the uncle of the deceased.
• He examined five witnesses to prove his alibi that he was on duty at the Indian Telephone Industries, from 8:30 A.M. on the date of the incident and that he was arrested from inside the factory at about 2:30 P.M. while on duty.
• The appellant also argued that he had no motive to kill the deceased since the mother of the deceased and other family members were in his favour regarding his marriage to Ranjana.

Arguments by Respondent:

• The prosecution examined 13 witnesses in their support, including the eyewitness sister of the deceased to establish the appellant's motive, various police authorities who were on the case, along with the statements of experts.

Observation of the Court:

1. The court ruled that the statement of the ballistic expert stating that the shot which killed Pappoo was fired from the pistol pointed out by the appellant is not sufficient in itself to prove that the appellant fired on the deceased.
2. The statements of the eyewitnesses who were present at the park coincidentally do not contain any inconsistency that could raise a reasonable doubt about their presence.
3. The FIR filed by Ranjana restricts the creation of any doubt about its authenticity, and the short time between the murder and filing of the FIR leaves little room to doubt its truthfulness.
4. The counsel for the appellant pressed hard on the defence evidence to establish the alibi of the accused. However, the statements given by the appellant's colleagues confirming his presence at the workplace during the time of the murder cannot be relied upon, particularly in light of other evidence, and it is insufficient to prove that the appellant could not have been present near Hathi Park at about 9:00 A.M. when the murder was committed.
5. The guilt of the appellant can be well established. However, the gravity of the punishment awarded to him should be reconsidered by the court, since he was a young man who was also clearly insulted regarding his social status the previous evening, according to the prosecution witness Ranjana's statement.
6. Although the incident couldn't be termed as sudden provocation, the mental turmoil and sense of being socially wronged through which the appellant was suffering can't be ignored.
7. Moreover, it seems that the eyewitnesses haven't revealed the full truth because if the deceased was on the scooter when the bullet hit him, then the scooter should have dragged him far and caused several injuries. But the forensics only revealed the presence of the gunshot wound on the body.

Decision of the Court

• Thus, the courts in this regard confirmed the conviction of appellant as awarded by the two courts but the death sentence was set aside by the Hon'ble court and he was awarded life imprisonment.

Analysis

• This case helps to describe the ambit of "plea of alibi" that has been addressed under section 9 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
• The court has again reiterated in this judgement that:
  "The plea of alibi postulates the physical impossibility of the presence of the accused at the scene of offence by reason of his presence at another place. The plea can therefore succeed only if it is shown that the accused was so far away at the relevant time that he could not be present at the place where the crime was committed."
• The statements given by the colleagues of appellant would have been admitted if the distance of crime scene and office was far enough that would have rendered it impossible for the appellant to travel to another place without being noticed by the colleagues. However, in this case, the distance between the two was short enough that there might be a possibility that they wouldn't have noticed him.
• Moreover, the testimonies of the witness must be carefully examined and any minor inconsistency in their statements must not render it null, but should be considered by the court during the pronouncement of the judgement.

Conclusion

• The rule laid down in Dudh Nath Pandey v. State of U.P. by the Supreme Court once again strengthened the important principles of criminal jurisprudence, especially the plea of alibi and credibility of the witnesses.
• The judgement also makes clear that small discrepancies in the witness statements do not make them irrelevant or inadmissible.

References

• SCC Online
• https://indiankanoon.org/doc/42851/
• https://digiscr.sci.gov.in/view_judgment?id=MzMxNzA=