1. Murder trial — Conviction under Sections 302/34 and 460, IPC — Appeal against conviction based on eyewitness identification and forensic recoveries. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 2015
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Govind Mandavi – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chattisgarh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No(s). 5315 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s). 13533 of 2025)
Decided On : 08-12-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mrs. Pragya Baghel, AOR Mr. Azad Bansala, Adv. Mr. Yuvraj Kashyap, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Adv. Mr. Prashant Kumar Umrao, AOR
For the Petitioner(s): Mrs. Pragya Baghel, AOR Mr. Azad Bansala, Adv. Mr. Yuvraj Kashyap, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Adv. Mr. Prashant Kumar Umrao, AOR
IMPORTANT POINT
Murder and lurking house trespass – Omission of names of accused in FIR is fatal as it goes to very root of matter.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/34 and 460 – Murder and lurking house trespass – Common intention – Life imprisonment – Two star prosecution witnesses have attempted to modulate and improve their versions while deposing on oath – Their testimonies are full of embellishments and contradictions – Omission of names of accused in FIR is fatal as it goes to very root of matter – Said omission completely impeaches credibility of prosecution’s case – Once fact of identification of accused appellant by the witness is eschewed from consideration, there remains no credible evidence on record to connect appellant with crime – None of recovered articles tested positive for any particular blood group and same cannot be connected with crime – Trial Court as well as High Court committed grave errors in facts as well as in law while appreciating evidence available on record and convicting accused-appellant for offences alleged – Appellant acquitted. (Paras 39, 45, 46, 47, 48 and 49)
Facts of the case:
The appellant-Govind Mandavi1, along with co accused Narender Nag and Mansingh Nureti (both of whom stand acquitted by High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur), were put to trial before Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, North Bastar, Kanker, in Special Penal Case No. 65 of 2021. Upon conclusion of trial, vide judgment and order dated 28th January, 2023, accused appellant and co-accused Mansingh Nureti were convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302/34 and 460 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Findings of Court:
Impugned judgments do not stand to scrutiny and are hereby set aside. Accused appellant is acquitted of charges. He shall be released forthwith from custody, if not required in any other case.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to conviction based on material omissions in FIR, delayed identification as embellishment due to enmity, and inconclusive forensic evidence. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 )
3. Material contradictions in eyewitness testimony — Omission of accused's name in FIR — Inconclusive forensic reports — Prior enmity suggesting false implication. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 47 )
4. Omission of the accused's name in the FIR, when the informant had knowledge of the identity, is fatal and impeaches the prosecution's credibility. (Para 44 , 45 )
5. Appeal allowed — Conviction and sentence set aside — Accused acquitted and ordered for release. (Para 48 , 49 , 50 )
6. What is the legal effect of omitting the accused's name in the FIR when the informant had knowledge of the identity?
Such an omission is a material lacuna that goes to the root of the matter, impeaches the credibility of the prosecution's case, and can be fatal to the conviction. (Para 41 , 44 , 45 )
7. How does the court view delayed identification in the presence of prior enmity?
Belated identification introduced in police statements, which contradicts the initial version of masked assailants, is viewed as an embellishment and manipulation to falsely implicate the accused due to pre-existing enmity. (Para 28 , 31 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 43 )
8. What is the evidentiary value of blood-stained recoveries where the blood group is not determined?
Mere detection of human blood on recovered articles is inconsequential if the blood group is not determined or matched with the deceased, as it fails to connect the accused to the crime. (Para 47 )
9. What is the impact of conducting a Test Identification Parade (TIP) after the accused is already named in police statements?
Conducting a TIP after the accused has already been named in a Section 161 CrPC statement creates serious doubt regarding the genuineness of that statement and the identification process. (Para 42 )
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:
| Sections | Sentence | Penalty/Fine | Sentence in default of payment of fine |
| Section 302 r/w 34 IPC. | Life Imprisonment | Rs.10,000/- | Six months RI |
| Ten Years RI | Rs.5000/- | Three months RI |
4. Accused Narender Nag was held guilty of the offences punishable under Section 302/34 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 19895[For short, ‘SC/ST Act’.], and was sentenced as follows:
| Sections | Sentence | Penalty/Fine | Sentence in default of payment of fine |
| Section 302 r/w 34 IPC. | Life Imprisonment | Rs.10,000/- | Six months RI |
| Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act. | Life Imprisonment | Rs.10,000/- | Six months RI |
5. In appeal, the High Court set aside the conviction of the two co-accused, Narender Nag and Mansingh Nureti, whilst upholding the conviction and sentence of the present accused-appellant, vide the common judgment and order dated 14th January, 2025, passed in the clubbed criminal appeals, including Criminal Appeal No. 1298 of 2023 preferred by the accused-appellant.
Factual Background
6. Succinctly stated, facts germane for adjudication of the present appeal are set out hereinbelow.
7. Heeralal Hidko (PW-1) submitted a merg intimation6[(Exh P/1).] (oral report) to the SHO, Police Station Bhanupratappur, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh, on 18th April, 2021, at about 7:25 a.m., alleging inter alia: -
“I am a Native resident of Village Iragaon, Durgupara, I work in Farming sector. Like every day routine, on 17/04/2021, my son Bivan and daughter-in-law Sukmai Hidko both (sic) were sleeping inside the Farm hut around 11:30 my daughter-in-law Sukmai came home and told me that "2 unknown masked persons came at around 11:00 one of whom was tall and another was short-heighted and thin and held sickle In his hand. They called and woke up my husband Bivan and took him away from the farm hut, I followed them and stood on the door. After a while, my husband screamed "Aye Daayi! O Daayii" I got scared and ran away." As soon as I got this news, I took Sahdev Kadiyam, Kushal Kawde and Dhannaram Anchala, and others with me to my field and in the light of my torch, I found my son Bivan lying dead, soaked in blood. My son is dead, some unknown person has killed my son with a sharp weapon. Due to the midnight and it being a forest area, I took care of the dead body of my son, and in the morning, I came here to report.”
8. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, First Information Report7[For short, ‘FIR’; Exh. P/2.] No. 106 of 2021, dated 18th April, 2021, came to be registered at the Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC against unknown assailants.
9. Evidently, a perusal of the FIR (Exh. P/2) makes it clear that the informant Heeralal Hidko (PW-1) was not an eyewitness to the incident; rather, his knowledge of the occurrence was entirely based on the information furnished to him by Smt. Sukmai Hidko (PW-2), his daughter-in-law and wife of the deceased Bivan Hidko.
10. The statement of Smt. Sukmai Hidko (PW-2),
