Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta on Monday, December 8, set aside the conviction of a man for murder and ordered his release, holding that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Bench found that the case rested on an FIR lodged by the deceased’s father, who, despite being informed by his daughter-in-law about the alleged assailant’s identity, reported the incident as having been committed by unknown masked persons and did not name the appellant-accused. Treating this omission, later addressed through delayed statements and identification, as going to the root of the prosecution narrative, the Court concluded that no reliable evidence remained to connect the accused with the crime.

On the night of 17 April 2021, the deceased and his wife were sleeping in a farm hut when, according to the wife, masked men arrived, woke the deceased and took him away. She informed her father-in-law, who, along with other villagers, later found the deceased lying dead with injuries inflicted by a sharp weapon. The next morning, the father-in-law lodged a merg intimation, on the basis of which an FIR under Section 302/34 IPC was registered against unknown assailants.

Also Read: Nomination Of Parent For General Provident Fund Ceases On Employee’s Marriage; Supreme Court Allows Appeal, Restores CAT Order Granting Equal Share To Widow And Mother

Four days after the incident, the deceased’s wife gave a statement under Section 161 CrPC, alleging for the first time that one assailant’s mask had slipped and she recognised him as the appellant. The police arrested the appellant and two others, recovered an axe, bloodstained clothes and other articles, and sent them for forensic examination; human blood was detected, though the blood group could not be determined. A test identification parade was then conducted, in which the wife identified the appellant.

At trial, the prosecution examined sixteen witnesses and relied on the wife’s evidence, the identification proceedings, recovery of articles and motive arising from family disputes linked to the deceased’s second marriage. The accused denied the allegations. The trial court convicted all three accused under IPC and the SC/ST Act; on appeal, the High Court acquitted the two co-accused while maintaining the appellant’s conviction, based on the wife’s testimony, TIP, forensic report and motive evidence.

The Court observed that "The FIR (Exh. P/2) contains no assertion that the mask of any of the assailants fell off during the incident, or that the eye-witness (deceased’s wife), Smt. Sukmai Hidko (PW-2) was thereby able to identify any of the assailants." It further stated that "There is no assertion in the FIR (Exh. P/2) that Smt. Sukmai Hidko (PW-2) had fallen ill or was not in a position to speak after the incident."

On the omission of the accused’s name, the Court recorded: “It is clear that the witness Smt. Sukmai Hidko (PW-2) described every other minute aspect such as the arrival of the masked men, the time at which they came, their physical features (one tall, one short and lean), the weapons they carried, the manner in which they awakened her husband, took him away from the farm hut, and the cries she heard thereafter. It is therefore completely unbelievable that she would have omitted to mention the name of the accused to her father-inlaw on the ground that she was unwell. 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 and introduced in the belated police statement of Smt. Sukmai Hidko (PW-2) suggesting that she had fallen ill and was therefore prevented from disclosing the name of Govind Mandavi to her father-in-law even though she had identified him by his voice and as his mask had fallen off.”

The Court further stated: “we are of the firm view 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 said omission completely impeaches the credibility of the prosecution's case.” The Court added: “Once the fact of identification of the accused-appellant by the witness Smt. Sukmai Hidko (PW-2) is eschewed from consideration, there remains no credible evidence on record to connect the appellant with the crime.”

Also Read: Gauhati High Court Quashes Discharge Of Accused, Orders Framing Of Murder Charges In 2018 Tezu Police Station Lynching Case

The Court directed: “The impugned judgments do not stand to scrutiny and are hereby set aside. The accused-appellant is acquitted of the charges. He shall be released forthwith from custody, if not required in any other case. The appeal stands allowed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”

Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mrs. Pragya Baghel, AOR Mr. Azad Bansala, Adv.

For the Respondents: Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Adv. Mr. Prashant Kumar Umrao, AOR

Case Title: Govind Mandavi versus State of Chhattisgarh
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1399
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No(s). of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s). 13533 of 2025)
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath; Justice Sandeep Mehta