On Monday, the Supreme Court set aside a murder conviction arising from a 2021 incident, sharply criticising the prosecution for relying on shifting testimony and evolving allegations rather than a consistent factual foundation. The Bench observed that the absence of the accused’s name in the earliest report to police was a “fatal omission”, one that fundamentally weakened the prosecution’s case and rendered the subsequent narrative unreliable.
Brief Facts:
The case stemmed from the Appellant’s challenge to the order of the Chhattisgarh High Court, which had affirmed his conviction for murder and house trespass under the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution's story began with an FIR registered shortly after a murder intimation was lodged, reporting that the victim had been taken from his farm hut by masked individuals and later discovered dead with sharp-weapon injuries. During the investigation, statements were recorded under Section 161 and Section 164 CrPC, a Test Identification Parade was conducted, and several items recovered at the Appellant’s instance were reported to contain human blood, though the samples were unsuitable for determining blood group. The trial court convicted the accused, the High Court partially modified the outcome on appeal, and the matter eventually reached the Apex Court for final adjudication.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The Appellant contended that he was not named in the FIR or the earliest oral report, despite the prosecution alleging that the eyewitness, his sister-in-law, had recognised him at the time of the incident. It was argued that the subsequent statements naming him were delayed, embellished, and motivated by prior family disputes arising from the deceased’s second marriage. The Test Identification Parade was also challenged as redundant, given the admitted prior acquaintance. Further, it was submitted that the forensic evidence lacked probative value as the blood group could not be determined, and the prosecution failed to establish a chain of custody and linkage to the crime.
Contentions of the Respondent:
On the other hand, the State argued that the non-disclosure of the Appellant’s name in the FIR was explainable due to the witness’s physical and emotional condition immediately after witnessing the killing. It was asserted that her later detailed statements and courtroom identification were credible and supported by motive evidence concerning family hostility. The State submitted that the findings of the trial court and High Court represented concurrent findings of fact and required no interference.
Observation of the Court:
The Court noted that, “the factum of the death of Bivan Hidko being homicidal is not in dispute, which stands established from the testimony of the medical jurist.” It held that “the omission of the names of the accused in the FIR (Exh. P/2), which was lodged on the basis of the information provided by Smt. Sukmai Hidko (PW-2) to Heeralal Hidko (PW-1) is fatal as it goes to the very root of the matter.”
The Bench also found material inconsistencies in the testimonies of key witnesses. The Court concluded that “the two star prosecution witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2) have attempted to modulate and improve their versions while deposing on oath. Their testimonies are full of embellishments and contradictions.” It further noted that the narrative evolved over time, stating that “this omission strikes at the very foundation of the prosecution’s case, and it appears that, to overcome the same, a story was subsequently cooked up.”
The Court found the TIP unnecessary because the witness already knew the accused, remarking that “there was absolutely no justification for conducting a TIP of the accused-appellant Govind Mandavi at her instance, particularly as she admittedly knew the accused from earlier, the accused-appellant being the brother of Binda Bai (PW-6), the woman whom the deceased had betrothed during the subsistence of his marriage with Smt. Sukmai Hidko (PW-2).” It further observed that the belated introduction of the Appellant’s identity appeared to be “a clear manipulation, devised to implicate the accused-appellant in the crime owing to prior enmity.”
Further, the Court observed that “none of the recovered articles tested positive for any particular blood group, and hence, the same cannot be connected with the crime.”
The decision of the Court:
In light of the foregoing discussion, the Court held that the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. The Bench declared that “The impugned judgments do not stand to scrutiny and are hereby set aside.” The appellant was acquitted and directed to be released forthwith, “if not required in any other case,” and the appeal was accordingly allowed.
Case Title: Govind Mandavi Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Case No.: SLP (Crl.) No(s).13533 of 2025
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Vikram Nath and Hon’ble Justice Sandeep Mehta
Advocate for the Appellant: AOR Pragya Baghel and Adv. Azad Bansala
Advocate for the Respondent: AOR Prashant Kumar Umrao and Adv. Abhishek Pandey
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
