Judgment Intelligence
OtherDudh Nath Pandey v. The State of U.P.
Criminal Appeal No. 163 of 1979; reported as AIR 1981 SC 911, (1981) 2 SCC 166 and 1981 SCR (2) 771
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Date of Decision
- 11 February 1981
- Bench
- Chief Justice Y.V. Chandrachud and Justice A.P. Sen
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 302; Constitution of India — Article 136
Final Outcome
The conviction under Section 302 IPC was confirmed, the death sentence was set aside and the appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for life; the appeal was partly allowed (para 23).
Key holdings
- Concurrent findings of fact can be reviewed for perversity, but a strong case must be made out (para 18).
- Defence witnesses are entitled to equal treatment with prosecution witnesses; courts must not disbelieve them merely because the defence called them (para 19).
- The plea of alibi postulates the physical impossibility of the accused's presence at the scene; evidence consistent with presence at both places within the time available fails (para 19).
- If witnesses on whose evidence a life hangs do not reveal the whole truth, the court must take all reasonable possibilities into account when sentencing (para 22).
Brief Facts
A young man was shot dead in Allahabad in November 1976 on his scooter after dropping his sister at her school (paras 1, 5). The appellant, a motor-car driver who had lodged in the family's out-house, wanted to marry the sister; his custody application and habeas corpus petition claiming her as his wife had failed, and the evening before the murder he had threatened the deceased (paras 3-4). Two eyewitnesses named him, and a pistol was recovered at his instance (paras 6, 9). He set up an alibi that he was at work in a factory at Naini (para 12). The Sessions Court convicted him under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to death; the High Court confirmed (para 1).
Court's Findings
The recovery of the pistol could at best prove the appellant's knowledge of where it was kept, and the ballistic evidence took the case forward but not far enough (para 15). The eyewitnesses were nevertheless reliable: the sister's FIR, lodged within about forty-five minutes, named them and matched their account (paras 16-17). Concurrent findings are not immune from review, since "concurrence is not an insurance against the charge of perversity", but a strong case is needed and none was made out (para 18). The Court cautioned that "Courts ought to overcome their traditional, instinctive disbelief in defence witnesses" (para 19). Even so, the alibi failed: it succeeds only if the accused was so far away that he could not have been present, and the factory was close enough for him to punch in and reach the scene within half an hour (para 19). On sentence, the previous evening's insult was not sudden provocation but the appellant's mental turmoil was relevant, the normal sentence for murder being life imprisonment (para 21). The absence of injuries and the standing scooter suggested an altercation the witnesses had concealed, making death unsafe (para 22).
Legal Principle
Defence witnesses are entitled to the same treatment as prosecution witnesses. A plea of alibi succeeds only if it shows the physical impossibility of the accused's presence at the scene. For murder, life imprisonment is the normal sentence, and possibilities concealed by witnesses must be weighed before imposing death (paras 19, 21-22).
