Karnataka HC Notices Sri Lankan Judge's Rights Plea
07 Mar 2026
Karnataka Proposes Social Media Ban for Under-16s
07 Mar 2026
Justice Dharmadhikari Sworn In as 55th Madras HC Chief Justice
07 Mar 2026
Punjab HC Acquits Ram Rahim in Journalist Murder
07 Mar 2026
Appellate Courts Can Rely on Unexhibited Public Documents Produced by Plaintiff: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA
Govind Mandavi – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chattisgarh – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
Sandeep Mehta, J.
1. Heard.
2. Leave granted.
3. The appellant-Govind Mandavi1[Hereinafter, referred to as the “accused-appellant”.], along with co-accused Narender Nag and Mansingh Nureti (both of whom stand acquitted by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur2[Hereinafter, referred to as the “High Court”.]), were put to trial before the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, North Bastar, Kanker3[Hereinafter, referred to as the “trial Court”.], in Special Penal Case No. 65 of 2021. Upon conclusion of the trial, vide judgment and order dated 28th January, 2023, the accused- appellant and co-accused Mansingh Nureti were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 and 460 of the Indian Penal Code, 18604[For short, ‘IPC’.], and were sentenced in the following manner:
Murder and lurking house trespass – Omission of names of accused in FIR is fatal as it goes to very root of matter.
The prosecution must establish the identity of the accused beyond reasonable doubt; weak witness identification leads to acquittal.
Hurt, attempt to murder and house trespass – Dock identification has no meaning at all where Investigating Officer has not been examined and TIP is not available on record – Dock identification by fe....
Failure of prosecution to prove charge beyond reasonable doubt due to inordinate delay in FIR and weak identification evidence.
The court clarified that identification procedures must meet strict standards to ensure reliability; failure to do so results in acquittal due to reasonable doubt.
Identification in court serves as primary evidence, with errors in pre-trial identifications not automatically rendering testimonies invalid if verifiable by corroborating evidence.
Ram Kumar Pandey v. State of M.P.
-
Read summary
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.