BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

IN THE MATTER OF

DUDH NATH PANDEY …PETITIONER

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA …RESPONDENT

(1981 AIR 911)

 IMPORTANT PARTIES/ WITNESSES
• DECEASED : Vijay Bhan Kishore/Pappoo

• ACCUSED/APPELLANT: Dudh Nath Pandey

• DECEASED’S SISTER: Ranjana

• P.W.3: Harish Chandra

• P.W.1: Ashok Kumar

 FACTS

• Pappoo was the son of advocate Brij Bhan kishore who died in 1967 leaving behind pappoo and his 3
sisters
• The appellant, Dudh Nath Pandey, who was a motor-car driver by occupation, used to live as a tenant in
an out- house of a sprawling bungalow belonging to the family of the deceased
• The appellant developed a fancy for Ranjana who was about 20 years of age when he came to live
in the out-house.
• Pappoo, took upon himself the task of preventing the appellant from pursuing his sister
• The appellant was turned out of the out-house
• Soon thereafter, accused filed an application before the City Magistrate, Allahabad, asking for the custody of Ranjana, alleging that she was
his lawfully wedded wife which Ranjana denied.
• 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, including her uncle K. P. Saxena, and asking that she be released from their custody which was even further denied
by Ranjana hence the writ was dismissed on November 8, 1973.
• On August 1, 1975, the Principal of St. Anthony's Convent made a complaint to the police that the appellant had made indecent overtures to
Ranjana and hence the appelant was arrested.
• On November 1, 1976 , appellant came to Ranjana’s ,abused Pappoo and is alleged to have threatened to kill him, if he dared oppose his,
the appellant's marriage with Ranjana.
• Due to the threat ,Pappoo used to escort Ranjana every morning to the school where she was teaching.
• On November 2, 1976 Around 9:00 AM when pappoo was returning after dropping of Ranjana to the school, the appellant is alleged to have
fired at him with a country- made pistol near Hathi park
• The occurrence is said to have been witnessed by Harish Chandra (P. W. 3), a domestic servant of the family of the deceased and by Harish
Chandra's friend Ashok Kumar (P. W.1) who came to visit the Hathi park after the deceased left the home.
• Ashok Kumar and Harish Chandra rushed to St. Anthony's Convent in a rickshaw and informed Ranjana Kishore about the murder of
her brother. Ranjana ,thereafter she went straight to the Cannington police station which is about 2 kms. away. She wrote out the report
(Ex. Ka-1) in her own hand and submitted it to the officer-in-charge of the police station at 9-45 A.M
• In the meantime, information of the murder had reached the police station of Colonelganj, within the 'jurisdiction' of which the murder
had taken place.
• P. S. I. Srivastava arrested the appellant at about 2- 30 P.M. while he was standing near a pan-shop in front of the Indian Telephone
Industries, Naini, where he used to work.
• The appellant was taken to the scene of offence where he made a certain statement and took out a loaded pistol from a heap of
rubbish lying on the Kamla Nehru Road, being the direction in which he had run away after killing Pappoo. The Ballistic
expert, Budul Rai, opined that the empty cartridge-shell, which was lying at the scene of offence, was fired from that
particular pistol.
• Dr. G. S. Saxena, who conducted the postmortem examination found a single gun-shot injury on the left side of the chest of the
deceased, below the armpit. The injury had caused seven pellet wounds, each measuring 1/3 inch in diameter. Seven pellets were
recovered from the body. The injury, according to Dr. Saxena, was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
 ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

1. Lived in the house of the deceased as the guest and not as a tenant.

2. Deceased sister got intimate with him and he left the house because she told him that there was danger to his life.

3. The murder of the deceased was engineered by Dr. K. P. Saxena, the maternal uncle of the deceased.

4. No motive as the family wanted him to marry Ranjana.

5. He was on duty on the date of the incident at the Indian Telephone Industries, from 8:30 A.M. and was arrested
from the factory while on duty.
 ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
• Ashok Kumar (P.W. 1) and Harish Chandra (P.W. 3) were examined as eyewitnesses.

• Ranjana Kishore (P.W. 2) was examined to prove the motive for the murder as also for showing that the deceased Pappoo had
taken her to the school on his scooter and that, soon thereafter, she was informed by the two eye-witnesses of the murder.
 
• The events after the murder happened in quick succession leaving no time to contrive and confabulate. Her F.I.R. was recorded
within a short duration and the story disclosed is precisely the same as the witnesses narrated in the Court.
 
• There is a short distance between Naini factory and at the scene of offence. The workers punch their cards on entering the
factory but not while leaving. The appellant went to the factory at the appointed hour, left it immediately and went in search of
his prey. He knew, when, precisely, Pappoo would return after dropping Ranjana at the school.
 
• The appellant attempted to go back to his work but that involved the risk of the time of his re-entry being punched again. That is
how he was arrested at about 2- 30 P.M. while he was loitering near the pan-shop in front of the factory. There is no truth in the
claim that he was arrested from inside the factory.
 LEGAL PROVISIONS

Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Punishment for murder. — Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or 1[imprisonment for

life], and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 11 of 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.

Section 103 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Burden of proof as to particular fact.—The burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who

wishes the Court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person. Illustration - A

prosecutes B for theft, and wishes the Court to believe that B admitted the theft to C. A must prove the admission. B wishes the Court to believe that, at the time

in question, he was elsewhere. He must prove it.

 PRINCIPLES PROPOUNDED
• Conviction u/s 302 IPC was upheld but sentence was reduced to Life Imprisonment.

• Normal sentence is the sentence of Life imprisonment and not of death.

• Not a case of sudden provocation v. reasonable possibility of altercation.

• All reasonable possibilities in normal and natural course of human affairs should be taken into
consideration while deciding the question of sentence.

• Plea of alibi
11. 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.
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.
 OPINION

We believe that the hon'ble judges of the Supreme court have carefully analyzed every aspect of the
evidences presented before the court and upon being sure of the veracity of the same has rightly convicted
the accused. The court did the right thing of awarding life imprisonment over death penalty because the
statement made by Pappoo the previous day may have caused mental provocation which may have
indirectly induced him to do so. So the decision was quite reasonable because it didn’t change the crime
committed and justice was done to the accused to by reducing the punishment and keeping natural justice
alive. Moreover, the possibility of an altercation between the appellant and the deceased cannot reasonably
be excluded by the court in deciding the punishment for the accused.
CASE ANALYSIS PRESENTED BY :-

1. RASHIKA AGARWAL (17BBL038)

2. RISHAB LODHA (17BBL039)
3. RITIKA KANWAR (17BBL040)
4. ROHAN BANGIA (17BBL041)
5. ROHAN R. PATEL (17BBL042)