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
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.
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 |
| Section 460 IPC. | 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: -
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. Sukma
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....
The court clarified that identification procedures must meet strict standards to ensure reliability; failure to do so results in acquittal due to reasonable doubt.
Failure of prosecution to prove charge beyond reasonable doubt due to inordinate delay in FIR and weak identification evidence.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.