Dr. Dudh Nath Pandey vs. State of UP

• A college-going boy named Vijay Bhan Kishore was shot dead by the appellant who was convicted for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by additional Sessions Judge and was sentenced to death.
• Aforementioned conviction was confirmed by the Allahabad High Court and hence the appellant had filed an appeal by special leave to the Supreme Court. Vijay Bhan Kishore was the son of an advocate called Brij Bhan Kishore who died around 1967 leaving behind a widow with 3 daughters and a deceased. The youngest of the three daughters Ranjana Kishore was a teacher in St. Anthony Convent School. 
• The appellant Dudh Nath Pandey was a motor-car driver by occupation who lived as a tenant in a bungalow belonging to the deceased’s family. The appellant developed a fancy for Ranjana, the overtures made by the appellant to Ranjana created resentment in her family and therefore the appellant was turned out of the outhouse by the deceased.
• Thereafter, the appellant applied to the city Magistrate, Allahabad, asking for the custody of Ranjana, alleging that she was his lawfully wedded wife. That applicated was dismissed by the learned Magistrate after recording a statement of Ranjana, in which she denied that she was married to the appellant.
• The appellant thereafter filed a Habeas Corpus petition in the Allahabad High Court alleging that Ranjana was detained unlawfully by the members of her family Ranjana again denied the aforesaid allegation and hence accordingly the Habeas Corpus petition was dismissed by the High Court.
• Thereafter, the appellant came to the Bungalow of the deceased and is alleged to have threatened to kill the deceased if he dared oppose his marriage with Ranjana as a result the deceased used to escort Ranjana to school every morning, where she was teaching.
• On the next day, the deceased took Ranjana to her school on his scooter as usual Ranjana used to go to the school 30-40 mins earlier, her classes used to begin at 9:30 am. After dropping Ranjana at school the deceased started back home on his scooter.
• While he was passing by the Hathi Children’s Park, the appellant is alleged to have fired at him with the country-made pistol, leaving him dead
• The appellant was arrested at about 2:30 pm while he was standing near a pan shop in front of the industry where he used to work (Indian Telephone Industry, Miami).

Whether the accused take the defence of “plea of alibi”?

Arguments:

1. The appellant stated in his defence that he used to live in the house of the deceased as the guest of the family and not as a tenant and that Ranjana got intimate with him during that period. 
2. He left the house because she told him that there was danger to his life. The murder of Pappoo, according to the appellant, was engineered by Dr. K. P. Saxena, the maternal uncle of the deceased. 
3. The appellant denied his hand in the murder, saying that he had no reason to do so since the deceased's mother and the other members of the family desired that he should marry Ranjana.
4. The appellant examined five witnesses to prove his alibi, his contention being that he was on duty at the Indian Telephone Industries, right 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.

Judgment:

In this case, The court said that-

“The evidence of Ranjana shows beyond the manner of doubt that Harish Chandra and Ashok Kumar broke to her the news of her brother’s murder, while she was in the school. The events after the murder happened in such quick succession that there was no time for anyone to contrive and confabulate. Within ten minutes of the occurrence, Ranjana was informed of the incident by the two eye-witnesses and within a few moments thereafter she went to the scene of the tragedy. Her F.I.R. was recorded at the police station at 9.45 a.m. A fact of preponderating importance is that the story which Ranjana disclosed in the F.I.R. is precisely the same as the witnesses, including herself, narrated in the Court. The F.I.R. is a brief document of a page and a half. But, remarkably, it mentions 

1. That the appellant wanted to marry Ranjana and was harassing her towards that end; 
2. That there was a quarrel between the Appellant and the Deceased the previous evening, in which the former gave a threat of life to the latter;
3. That, Ranjana left for the school on the day of occurrence at 8.45 a.m. and 
4. That, soon thereafter, Harish Chandra and Ashok Kumar met her at the school and conveyed to her that they had gone to see the Hathi Park when, while the Deceased was passing along the road, the Appellant fired a shot at him.

We consider it beyond the normal range of human propensities that Ranjana could have built up the whole story within three-quarters of an hour which intervened between the time that she learned of her brother’s murder and the lodging by her of the F.I.R. She could not have taken the risk of creating a false witness by placing Ashok Kumar, who normally resided in Kanpur, alongside Harish Chandra. 

With the death of her brother, her own house was left without a male member. At home was an ailing mother and two other sisters, more or less of her age. There was no one to advise her upon the hatching of a conspiracy to involve the appellant and she could not have been in a proper frame of mind to do anything of the kind on her own. Her inexperience of life, the promptness with which she gave the F.I.R., and the wealth of details she mentioned therein afford an assurance that the story of the eye-witnesses is true in so far as it goes. Shri Kohli’s submission that Ranjana’s F.I.R. is ante-timed and must have been recorded late in the evening leaves us cold.”

That settles the issue of guilt. We agree with the view of the High Court and the Sessions Court and uphold the appellant’s conviction under Section 302 of the Penal Code.

The Court concluded that The Doctrine of Alibi was explained by the Supreme Court 

“… The plea of alibi postulates the physical impossibility of the presence of the accused at the scene of offense because of his presence at another place. Therefore, the plea can 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 plea of alibi is relevant and admissible under section 11 of the Evidence Act, which lays as under:

Section 11 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872:
When facts not otherwise relevant become relevant. — Facts not otherwise relevant are relevant—

(1) if they are inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant fact;

(2) if by themselves or in connection with other facts they make the existence or non-existence of any fact in issue or relevant fact highly probable or improbable. 

Illustrations:

• (a) The question is, whether A committed a crime at Calcutta on a certain day. The fact that, on that day, A was at Lahore is relevant. The fact that, near the time when the crime was committed, A was at a distance from the place where it was committed, which would render it highly improbable, though not impossible, that he committed it, is relevant.
• (b) The question is, whether A committed a crime. The circumstances are such that the crime must have been committed either by A, B, C, or D, every fact which shows that the crime could have been committed by no one else and that it was not committed by either B, C, or D, is relevant.

In observation of Plea of Alibi - The court said that the defense witnesses are entitled to equal treatment with those of the prosecution.