Dudh Nath Pandey v. State of U.P., (1981) 2 SCC 166
Bench – Y.V. Chandrachud, C.J. and A.P. Sen, J.
Delivered on February 11, 1981
Facts:
The case concerned the murder of Vijay Bhan Kishore alias Pappoo on November 2, 1976, near Hathi Park, Allahabad. Dudh Nath Pandey was employed as a motor-car driver and resided as a tenant in the victim’s family out-house. The appellant developed a romantic relationship with the victim’s sister, Ranjana Kishore, which was opposed by the family.
The appellant instituted legal proceedings claiming that Ranjana was his legally wedded wife, but the High Court dismissed the habeas corpus petition. One day prior to the incident, an altercation allegedly occurred between the appellant and the deceased. On the morning of November 2, 1976, while the deceased was returning after escorting his sister to school, he was shot at close range near Hathi Park.
Eyewitnesses Harish Chandra (PW-3) and Ashok Kumar (PW-1) claimed to have witnessed the appellant firing at the deceased and reloading the pistol before fleeing.
The Sessions Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to death. The Allahabad High Court affirmed the conviction. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant challenged the prosecution case and pleaded alibi.
He claimed that he was on duty at Indian Telephone Industries, Naini, from 8:30 AM onwards and was arrested from within the factory premises. Police witnesses, however, testified that he was arrested outside the factory near a pan-shop.
Issue: Whether the plea of alibi raised by the appellant established his physical impossibility of presence at the crime scene.
Reasoning by Court:
Nature of Plea of Alibi: The Supreme Court held that the plea of alibi postulates complete physical impossibility of the accused being present at the place of occurrence. The burden lies upon the accused to establish such impossibility through cogent evidence.
Failure to Establish Physical Impossibility: The Court observed that the distance between the factory and the place of occurrence was short. It was therefore possible for the accused to commit the offence and return to the factory without attracting notice. The conflicting evidence regarding the place of arrest further weakened the plea of alibi.
The Supreme Court rejected the plea of alibi raised by the appellant. The Court held that: A plea of alibi requires proof of physical impossibility of the accused’s presence at the crime scene. The appellant failed to establish such impossibility. The short distance between the factory and the place of occurrence made the plea improbable.