Supreme Court of India
GOVIND MANDAVIversusSTATE OF CHATTISGARH
- Citation
- 2025 INSC 1399
- Decided
- 8 December 2025
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- VIKRAM NATH
Holding
The conviction was set aside because the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's participation beyond reasonable doubt, owing to the fatal omission in the FIR, unreliable eyewitness identification, and inconclusive forensic evidence.
Summary
The appellant Govind Mandavi was convicted for murder under IPC s.302 r/w s.34 and for an offence under the SC/ST Act based on the testimony of the deceased's wife (PW‑2) and her father‑in‑law (PW‑1), who identified the accused after a delayed statement and a Test Identification Parade (TIP). The Supreme Court examined the credibility of these witnesses, noting prior family enmity, contradictions, and the omission of the appellant's name from the FIR despite the witness’s alleged knowledge. It held that the delayed identification and the manipulation of the statement rendered the testimony unreliable, and that the recovered blood‑stained articles, lacking blood‑group matching, could not be linked to the crime. The Court further ruled that the material omission of the accused’s name in the FIR was fatal to the prosecution’s case. Consequently, the conviction was set aside and the appellant was acquitted and ordered to be released.
Issues considered
- Whether the conviction under IPC s.302 r/w s.34 can be sustained in view of the omission of the accused's name in the FIR and the unreliability of the eyewitness testimony.
- Whether the identification of the accused through a Test Identification Parade is admissible when the witness had prior knowledge of the accused.
- Whether the recovery of blood‑stained articles without blood‑group correlation can constitute substantive evidence.
- Whether the material omission in the FIR defeats the prosecution's case under the Evidence Act.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 161, s. 164
- Evidence Act, 1872s. 11
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 34, s. 460
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989s. 3(2)(v)
Headnote
Issue for Consideration Whether the trial Court as well as the High Court committed grave errors in facts as well as in law while appreciating the evidence available on record and convicting the accused-appellant for the offences alleged u/s.302 r/w. s.34 IPC. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – s.3(2) (v) – One B was killed by masked persons – FIR was registered – A perusal of FIR makes it clear that informant-PW-1 was not an eye-witness to the incident; rather, his knowledge of the occurrence was
Subjects
MurderFIRTest Identification ParadeRecovery of articlesMaterial omissionManipulationPrior enmityBlood evidenceCredibilitySC/ST ActAcquittal
Judgment
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 560 : 2025 INSC 1399
Govind Mandavi
v.
State of Chattisgarh
(Criminal Appeal No. 5315 of 2025)
08 December 2025
[Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the trial Court as well as the High Court committed grave
errors in facts as well as in law while appreciating the evidence
available on record and convicting the accused-appellant for the
offences alleged u/s.302 r/w. s.34 IPC.
Headnotes†
Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 r/w. s.34 – Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – s.3(2)
(v) – One B was killed by masked persons – FIR was registered –
A perusal of FIR makes it clear that informant-PW-1 was not
an eye-witness to the incident; rather, his knowledge of the
occurrence was entirely based on the information furnished
to him by PW-2, his daughter-in-law and wife of the deceased
B – After four days of the incident, PW-2 recorded her statement
u/s.161 CrPC and for the first time it was alleged by her that that
during the assault being made on her husband, the mask of one
of the assailants came off and thus, she was able to identify
the said assailant as being the appellant – The Investigating
Officer, PW-14, apprehended the accused-appellant as well
as the two co-accused – Recoveries were effected based on
their disclosure/memorandum statements – Accused-appellant
was subjected to TIP and allegedly identified by PW-2 – The
trial Judge proceeded to convict and sentence all the three
accused persons – The High Court affirmed the conviction
of the accused-appellant while setting aside the conviction
of the remaining two co-accused – Correctness:
Held: A very significant fact which remains undisputed is regarding
the prior enmity between the prosecution witnesses (PW-1 and
PW-2) and the accused-appellant herein – It is an admitted position
* Author
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 561
Govind Mandavi v. State of Chattisgarh
that during the subsisting marriage of PW-2 with the deceased-B,
he married PW-6, the sister of the present accused-appellant,
and serious differences had arisen between the parties owing
to this relationship – In FIR, there is a material omission of a
known accused’s name in the FIR despite the eyewitness having
allegedly identified him and same is a fatal flaw as it goes to the
very root of the matter – The belated introduction of the accused
appellant’s name in PW-2’s 161 CrPC statement appears to be
a clear manipulation – PW-2 had, actually, named the accused-
appellant in that statement, there was absolutely no justification
for conducting a TIP of the accused-appellant at her instance,
particularly as she admittedly knew the accused from earlier, the
accused-appellant being the brother of PW-6 – Once the fact of
identification of the accused-appellant by the witness PW-2 is
eschewed from consideration, there remains no credible evidence
on record to connect the appellant with the crime – None of the
recovered articles tested positive for any particular blood group,
and hence, the same cannot be connected with the crime – Thus,
the accused appellant is acquitted of the charges. [Paras 28, 43,
45, 46, 47, 48]
Case Law Cited
Ram Kumar Pandey v. State of M.P. [1975] 3 SCR 519 : AIR 1975
SC 1026 – referred to.
List of Acts
Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
List of Keywords
Murder; FIR; Test Identification Parade; Recovery of articles; Material
omission; Manipulation; Belated improvements; Assailant’s name;
Prior enmity; Vital Omission; Disclosure statements; Memorandum
statements; Blood stained articles; Credible evidence.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
5315 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.01.2025 of the High Court
of Chattisgarh at Bilaspur in CRA No. 1298 of 2023
562 [2025] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant(s):
Mrs. Pragya Baghel, Azad Bansala.
Advs. for the Respondent(s):
Abhishek Pandey, Prashant Kumar Umrao.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Mehta, J.
1. Heard.
2. Leave granted.
3. The appellant-Govind Mandavi1, along with co-accused Narender
Nag and Mansingh Nureti (both of whom stand acquitted by the
High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur2), were put to trial before the
learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, North Bastar, Kanker3, 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,
and were sentenced in the following manner:
Sections Sentence Penalty/Fine Sentence in
default of
payment of fine
Section 302 Life Rs.10,000/- Six months RI
r/w 34 IPC. Imprisonment
Section 460 Ten Years RI Rs.5000/- Three months RI
IPC.
1 Hereinafter, referred to as the “accused-appellant”.
2 Hereinafter, referred to as the “High Court”.
3 Hereinafter, referred to as the “trial Court”.
4 For short, ‘IPC’.
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 563
Govind Mandavi v. State of Chattisgarh
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,
and was sentenced as follows:
Sections Sentence Penalty/Fine Sentence in
default of
payment of fine
Section 302 Life Rs.10,000/- Six months RI
r/w 34 IPC. Imprisonment
Section 3(2)(v) Life Rs.10,000/- Six months RI
of SC/ST Act. Imprisonment
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 (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
5 For short, ‘SC/ST Act’.
6 (Exh P/1).
564 [2025] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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
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), wife of the deceased
and daughter-in-law of Heeralal Hidko (PW-1), under Section 161
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19738 came to be recorded on
21st April, 2021, i.e., after four days of the incident and at that point
of time, for the first time, it was alleged by the lady that during the
assault being made on her husband, the mask of one of the assailants
came off and thus, she was able to identify the said assailant as
being the appellant-Govind Mandavi.
11. Acting upon the material collected during the course of investigation,
the Investigating Officer, Shri Damon Lal Bhuarya (PW-14),
apprehended the accused-appellant as well as the two co-accused
on 22nd April, 2021, as per duly prepared arrest memoranda9. Acting
in furtherance of the respective disclosure/memorandum statements10
furnished by all the three accused, the police effected the recoveries
attributed to them as per the following table: -
7 For short, ‘FIR’; Exh. P/2.
8 For short, ‘CrPC’.
9 Exh. P/21-23.
10 Exh. P/14, 16, and 18.
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 565
Govind Mandavi v. State of Chattisgarh
Accused Exhibit(s) Description of Articles
Govind Mandavi P/15 1. One Mobile Phone.
(accused
2. One Axe, which has been
appellant)
used in the commission of
the offence having blood-like
stains.
3. One half T-shirt having
blood-like stains.
4. One lower having blood-like
stains.
5. One black towel having
blood-like stains.
6. One pair of shoes having
blood-like stains.
7. Rs.500/- cash.
Mansingh Nureti P/17 1. One motorcycle, which is
used in the offence.
2. One T-shirt having blood like
stains.
3. One towel having blood-like
stains.
4. Rs.200 cash.
Narendra Nag P/19 1. One full shirt having blood
like stains.
2. One half jeans pant having
blood-like stains.
3. One towel having blood-like
stains.
4. Rs.500/- cash.
12. The prosecution alleged that all recovered articles were forwarded
to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Jagdalpur (Bastar), for
566 [2025] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
chemical and serological examination. As per the FSL report11, human
blood was detected on the axe recovered from the accused-appellant
(Article-C), the shoes seized from him (Article-E), the T-shirt and full
pant of co-accused Mansingh Nureti (Articles F-1 and F-2), the full
pant and towel attributed to co-accused Narender Nag (Articles G-1
and G-3), as well as the shirt and half-pant of the deceased (Articles
H-1 and H-2). However, the blood group could not be determined
as the serology report noted that the samples had disintegrated and
the result was, therefore, inconclusive.
13. The accused–appellant was subjected to a Test Identification Parade12
conducted by Moksha Dewangan, Tahsildar (PW-16), on 22nd April,
2021, during which he is alleged to have been identified by the
purported eyewitness, Smt. Sukmai Hidko (PW-2).
14. Pursuant to the filing of the chargesheet, the trial Court proceeded
to frame charges against all the three charge-sheeted accused.
15. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial.
16. To bring home the charge against the accused persons, the
prosecution examined as many as sixteen witnesses and exhibited
certain documents and material objects. The incriminating material
emerging from the prosecution evidence was put to the accused
persons in their examination under Section 313 CrPC, wherein they
denied the allegations in toto, asserting that they had been falsely
implicated. No evidence was adduced in defence.
17. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence brought on
record, and after considering the submissions advanced on behalf of
the prosecution and the defence, the learned trial Judge proceeded
to convict and sentence all the three accused persons as aforesaid,
vide judgment dated 28th January, 2023.
18. In appeal, the High Court affirmed the conviction of the accused-
appellant while setting aside the conviction of the remaining two
co-accused, vide judgment dated 14th January, 2025. The High Court
principally relied upon the testimony of Smt. Sukmai Hidko (PW-2);
her identification of the accused-appellant in the TIP, which was
11 Exh. P/40.
12 For short, ‘TIP’.
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 567
Govind Mandavi v. State of Chattisgarh
proved by the Executive Magistrate (Tahsildar) Moksha Dewangan
(PW-16) and the dock identification. The Court further drew support
from the FSL report, noting that human blood was detected on the
axe and shoes recovered pursuant to the memorandum statement of
the accused-appellant, duly proved through the testimony of Sahdev
Kadyam (PW-7).
19. The High Court additionally held that the motive attributed to the
accused-appellant stood firmly established on the basis of the
evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-4, PW-6, PW-7, PW-8, and PW-9,
who consistently deposed that the accused-appellant is the brother
of Binda Bai (PW-6), the second wife of the deceased. The record
reflected that the deceased had contracted a second marriage with
Binda Bai (PW-6), as his first wife, Smt. Sukmai Hidko (PW-2), was
unable to conceive. A son was born from the second wedlock, giving
rise to frequent quarrels between the two wives over taking the
child in the lap. Owing to these disputes, Binda Bai (PW-6) began
residing at her parental home, and community panchayat meetings
were convened on multiple occasions, during which altercations also
ensued. The High Court concluded that, as the accused-appellant
supported his sister and shared her grievances against the deceased
and his family, a strong motive existed for him to commit the offence.
20. The said judgment now forms the subject matter of challenge in the
present appeal by special leave.
Submissions on behalf of the accused-appellant
21. Learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant advanced the
following submissions in assailing the conviction recorded by the trial
Court and consequently affirmed by the High Court:
(i) That the accused-appellant was not named in the FIR13 (Exh.
P/2) lodged by Heeralal Hidko (PW-1). It stands admitted that
PW-1 lodged the report purely on the basis of the information
furnished to him by the alleged eye-witness Smt. Sukmai Hidko
(PW-2). Thus, omission to mention the name of the accused
in the very first version, despite such claimed knowledge, is a
material lacuna which, according to learned counsel, goes to
13 Exh. P/2.
568 [2025] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
the root of the matter and gravely undermines the credibility
of the prosecution case.
(ii) That the explanation tendered by the prosecution for the
omission of identity of the accused in the FIR (Exh. P/2), that
the informant, Heeralal Hidko (PW-1), was not an eye-witness,
and that Smt. Sukmai Hidko (PW-2) allegedly fell ill upon
witnessing the assault, is wholly implausible. Learned counsel
submitted that in the earliest version narrated by Smt. Sukmai
Hidko (PW-2) to her father-in-law immediately after the incident,
it was pertinently stated that the assailants had covered their
faces with masks. However, in stark contrast, her statements
recorded after significant gap, under Sections 161 CrPC and
164 CrPC on 21st April, 2021 and 21st April, 2024 respectively,
contain substantial and material improvements, including her
claim of having identified the accused-appellant as his mask
moved during the incident. Such embellished version, introduced
after an unexplained delay, is inherently unreliable and wholly
unworthy of credence.
(iii) That the conduct of the witness belies the prosecution story.
Smt. Sukmai Hidko (PW-2) was indeed conscious and capable
of narrating the incident, as is evident from the fact that the
informant Heeralal Hidko (PW-1), could lodge the merg intimation
(Exh P/1) on the basis of her version; thus, there was no reason
for her to omit the names of the assailants at that very earliest
point of time. Learned counsel submitted that the contents of
the merg intimation (Exh P/1) unmistakably demonstrate that
Smt. Sukami Hidko (PW-2) had provided a detailed information
of the incident to her father-in-law; hence, had she actually
identified any of the perpetrators, she would not have omitted
to disclose their names to him. Consequently, the absence
of the name of the accused-appellant in the merg intimation
(Exh. P/1) strikes at the root of the prosecution case.
(iv) That the prosecution’s attempt to justify the delayed disclosure
of the names of the assailant on the pretext of the illness of
Smt. Sukmai Hidko (PW-2) is wholly unconvincing. There is
no such corroborative evidence in form of any medical report
etc. to support the assertion that Smt. Sukmai Hidko (PW-2)
was in such a debilitated state as to be incapable of naming
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 569
Govind Mandavi v. State of Chattisgarh
her husband’s assailant for three consecutive days. It stands
admitted on record that the accused-appellant is the brother
of Smt. Binda Bai (PW-6), the second wife of the deceased-
Bivan Hidko, and that there existed palpable animosity between
the two branches of the family, an aspect borne out from the
testimonies of Heeralal Hidko (PW-1) and Smt. Sukmai Hidko
(PW-2). In this backdrop, the assertion made by Smt. Sukmai
Hidko (PW-2), that the accused-appellant’s mask purportedly
fell off during the assault, enabling her to identify him, at a
belated point in time when her statements under Sections 161
and 164 CrPC were recorded, is a clear embellishment. This
belated story, according to learned counsel, reflects a deliberate
attempt by the witness to falsely implicate the appellant owing
to the pre-existing enmity.
(v) That as the accused-appellant was well known to Smt. Sukmai
Hidko (PW-2) from the prosecution’s attempt to establish his
complicity by conducting a TIP indicates that Smt. Sukmai
Hidko (PW-2) could not identify any of the assailants at the
time of the incident. Once the accused had been named by
the witness, there would be no rationale for holding a TIP of
the same accused.
(vi) That the recoveries on which the trial Court as well as the
High Court relied heavily are inconsequential, because mere
detection of human blood on the articles does not, by itself,
provide any corroboration to the otherwise flimsy evidence of
the witnesses. The prosecution has neither proved the blood
group on the articles allegedly recovered at the instance of the
accused nor the blood group of the deceased, and hence, the
recoveries are rendered inconsequential. Furthermore, the link
evidence essential to prove the sanctity of the material objects
was not proved by leading credible evidence.
On these grounds, learned counsel implored the Court to accept
the appeal, set aside the conviction of the accused-appellant, and
direct his release from prison.
Submissions on behalf of the respondent-State
22. Per contra, learned standing counsel for the State of Chhattisgarh
supported the impugned judgment. He submitted that the accused-
570 [2025] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
appellant was named in the first statement under section 161 CrPC
of the wife of the deceased, Smt. Sukmai Hidko (PW-2), which was
recorded immediately after she regained strength. He urged that it
was entirely natural for a woman from a rural background, having
witnessed a brutal assault on her husband, to be in a state of deep
shock, and hence, her inability to immediately disclose the names of
the assailants to her father-in-law, Heeralal Hidko (PW-1), was not
unusual or unnatural. He further urged that the accused-appellant,
having been named and identified by the eyewitness Smt. Sukmai
Hidko (PW-2) in her sworn testimony, coupled with her identification
of the accused-appellant in the TIP and the plausible explanation
furnished for the delayed disclosure, renders her testimony wholly
reliable.
23. Thus, learned counsel urged that the conviction of the accused-
appellant as recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the High
Court based on concurrent findings of fact does not warrant any
interference.
Discussion and Analysis
24. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have carefully re-
analysed the evidence available on record.
25. At the outset, we may observe 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 Dr. A.K. Dhruw (PW-11).
Hence, we need not burden the judgment by dwelling further on this
aspect of the prosecution case.
26. It is also undisputed that the FIR (Exh. P/2) was lodged on the basis
of the merg statement (Exh. P/1) of Heeralal Hidko (PW-1), given
at Police Station Bhanupratappur, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh on
18th April, 2021 at 7:25 a.m., wherein he categorically stated that his
daughter-in-law came to him at about 11:30 p.m. and informed him
that two unknown masked persons came at around 11:00 p.m.,
one of whom was tall, while the other was short-heighted and lean,
and was holding a sickle in his hand. They called out to Bivan, woke
him up, and took him away from the farm hut. Smt. Sukmai Hidko
(PW-2) followed them and stood at the door, and upon hearing her
husband scream, she got scared, and ran away.
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 571
Govind Mandavi v. State of Chattisgarh
27. On receiving this information, the informant Heeralal Hidko (PW-1),
accompanied by Sahdev Kadiyam (PW-7), Kushal Kawde (PW-3),
Ramprasad Netam, and Ghana Anchala, proceeded to the field where,
in the light of a torch, they found Bivan Hidko lying dead in a pool of
blood. It was specifically alleged in the merg information (Exh P/1)
that some unknown persons had assaulted and killed Bivan with a
sharp-edged weapon.
28. A very significant fact which remains undisputed is regarding the
prior enmity between the prosecution witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2)
and the accused-appellant herein. It is an admitted position that
during the subsisting marriage of Smt. Sukmai Hidko (PW-2) with
the deceased Bivan Hidko, he married Smt. Binda Bai (PW-6), the
sister of the present accused-appellant, and serious differences had
arisen between the parties owing to this relationship. Panchayats
were convened, wherein quarrels flared up between them. It is in
this backdrop of prior enmity that we shall proceed to appreciate the
evidence of the two star witnesses, Heeralal Hidko (PW-1) and Smt.
Sukmai Hidko (PW-2), on whose testimony the entire prosecution
case hinges.
29. Heeralal Hidko (PW-1) testified as below: -
“(1) I know the three accused (Govind Mandavi, Narendra
Nag, Mansingh Nureti) in the Court. Bivan Hidko was my
son who has died. Our caste is Gond.
(2) I live in Durgupara village of Iragaon. I have a big
Farm hut in my field at Imlipara. My son Bivan Hidko and
his wife Sukmai Hidko lived in the Farm hut built in the
field. On 17.04.2021, at around 11:00 pm, my daughter-
in-law Sukmai Hidko came to my house and told me that
Govind and Mansingh came with sickle, at that time, I and
my husband were sleeping on separate cots. Govind and
Mansingh took my husband Bivan to the store room and
hit him on the face with the sickle. On being told the above
by my daughter-in-law, I, Sahdev Kadiyam, Kushal Kaudo,
Ramprasad Netam, Ghana Anchala went to the spot and
saw that my son Bivan Hidko was lying on his back on
the floor in the store room and there was an injury on his
face near his right eye and blood was oozing from there.
572 [2025] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
(3) I reported the incident on 18.04.2021. When the Merg
intimation was read out to the witness, he said that he had
written such a report. The Merg intimation was marked
ExP/01, and when the FIR was read out to the witness,
he said that he had written such a report. The FIR was
marked ExP/02.”
The witness was declared hostile by the Public Prosecutor and
was confronted with leading questions:
“(8). It is correct to say that my son Bivan Hidko has two
wives, his first wife is Sukmai Hidko and his second wife
is Bindabai. It is correct to say that Bindabai was staying
with her son at her maternal home in village Ghotha two
months before the incident. I do not know that there was
a quarrel between my son Bivan and his wife Bindabai. It
is correct to say that a meeting was held in village Ghotha
regarding Bivan and his wife Bindabai. It is correct to say
that in the said meeting Bindabai had threatened Bivan.
(9). It is correct to say that Sukmai Hidko told me that a
person was wearing a mask, mask opened and he saw
him who was Govind. It is correct to say that Govind
used to visit his sister Bindabai’s house, so Govind knew
that Bivan sleeps in the Farm hut. It is correct to say that
Sukmai told that Govind came to the store room Farm
hut with his two other companions as per the plan on
the night of 17.04.2021 and Govind along with one of his
companions went inside the shed with a sickle and his
other companion hid in the cowshed. It is correct to say
that Sukmai told that when Govind came out with Bivan,
all the three companions together took Bivan to the store
room about 50 meters away and hit him with a fatal stick
with the sickle They attacked and killed him. It is correct
to say that my daughter-in-law Sukma had told that
there were two masked men. It is correct to say that
my daughter-in-law Sukmai was not well at that time
and she told that she had gone to sleep due to her ill
health. It is correct to say that after the last rites of
the deceased, on 21.04.2021, Sukmai Bai had told that
there were not two but three unknown masked men.
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 573
Govind Mandavi v. State of Chattisgarh
It is correct to say that my daughter-in-law Sukmai
Bai had told the names of the three accused. It is
correct to say that Sukmai Bai told that the above
three persons together killed Bivan. I had told the
above things to the police while giving the statement
of ExP/03 and ExP/04.
……..
(13). I do not know about the incident myself but my
daughter-in-law Sukmai told me about it. It is incorrect to
say that I did not go to the spot.
(14). It is incorrect to say that the police did not read out
to me what was written in the FIR and the and the merg
intimation. The witness himself says that they read it out
to me. It is correct to say that at the time of writing the
merg intimation and the First Information Report, I had
mentioned two unknown masked men. It is correct to
say that at that time my daughter-in-law had told about
two unknown masked men. It is correct to say that when
the police interrogated me, I had told about two unknown
masked men.
…….
(16) It is correct to say that Bivan made Bindabai wear
bangles, as Sukmai did not give birth to a child. It is
correct to say that Bivan has a son from Bindabai. It is
incorrect to say that after Bindabai gave birth to a son,
since then there used to be quarrels between Bivan and
Bindabai. The witness himself says that Bindabai did not
allow Sukmai to touch her son, therefore, there used to
be quarrels between Bindabai and Sukmai. It is correct
to say that many social meetings were held regarding
the quarrel between Bindabai and Sukmai. The witness
himself says that Bindabai and Sukmai were counselled
in the social meetings. It is correct to say that due to this
quarrel, Bindabai was living at her maternal home.”
[Emphasis supplied]
574 [2025] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
30. The sole eye-witness Smt. Sukmai Hidko (PW-2) testified as follows:
“(2). I lived with my husband Bivan in a store room Farm
hut situated in Imalipara of village Iragaon. On the date of
incident, I was with my husband in the Farm hut. On the
night of incident, I and my husband were sleeping in store
room Farm hut when both the accused present in Court
including Govind were standing near the door of our store
room Farm hut. They opened the door of the Farm hut and
entered the house and Govind asked my husband to go
outside. My husband refused to go outside then Govind
caught him and took him to store room and Govind hit
my husband with sickle. My husband called out saying
‘Aye Dai O’. After this, I went to my father-in-law and told
him the above incident. After this, my father-in-law came
to store room Farm hut with some people. After this, he
went to the police station to report the same night.
(3). When the police interrogated me, I told them what I
had seen. The police interrogated me twice.
………..
(6). I went to the Tehsil office of Bhanupratappur. After
the identification proceedings were conducted there, I
identified Govind and the other two accused present
in the Court.”
The public prosecutor declared the witness to be hostile and
put her leading questions.
“(7). It is correct to say that I was not able to have a child,
so my husband, Bivan, made Bindabai wear bangles and
married her. It is correct to say that Bindabai has a son
from Bivan. I do not know that Bivan doubted Bindabai’s
character. The witness herself says that both Bivan and
Bindabai lived well. It is incorrect to say that Bivan doubted
Bindabai’s character, so she used to go to her maternal
home. The witness herself says that Bindabai used to
go to her maternal home without informing, so two-three
social meetings were held and Govind beat up the wife
in the social meeting. It is correct to say that in the social
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 575
Govind Mandavi v. State of Chattisgarh
meeting, Govind had threatened my husband Bivan that he
will take care of him/he brought Binda Bai back after three
social meetings. Bindabai went to her maternal home for
the fourth time and did not return after that. The witness
himself says that when the fourth social meeting was held,
Govind bad said that he would take care of my husband.
(8). The date of the incident was Saturday, 17th. I cannot
say that the date was 17.04.2021. it is correct to say that
on the date of the incident, my health was not good, so
I was sleeping after taking medicine. It is correct to say
that I had told my father-in-law about the incident and my
health was not good, so I went to sleep after telling my
father-in-law about the incident.
(9). It is correct to say that after my husband’s funeral, I told
my father-in-law, bother-in-law and other family members
that there were not two masked men but three men. It is
correct to say that I asked the masked men where they
were taking my husband. It is correct to say that one of
the masked men called me ‘didi’ and I tried to escape his
voice. I had recognised him and his mask had also fallen
off. It is correct to say that he was Govind. The witness
herself says that I recognised Govind when he said ‘Chal
Didi’ to me.
(10). At the time of the incident, Bindabai was staying at
her maternal home. Govind must have killed Bivan, thinking
that Bivan would not keep Bindabai. It is correct to say
that I had told all the above facts to the police while giving
the statement of ExP/05 and ExP/06.”
Cross-examination by Shri B.N. Nishad Advocate on behalf of
the accused Govind Mandavi and Narendra Nag
“12. It is incorrect to say that two people came wearing
masks. The witness herself says that two people came
in the shade of the house, and one person was standing
near the shade door. It is correct to say that the people
who came were wearing masks. It is incorrect to say that
I could not recognize any of them because they were
wearing masks. The witness herself says that I recognized
576 [2025] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Govind. It is incorrect to say that those people took my
husband out of the house, and then I went to tell my
father-in-law. The witness herself says that those people
took my husband out of the house and beat my husband,
then my husband shouted ‘Aye Dai O’ and after that I went
to tell my father-in-law. It is incorrect to say that I did not
see who killed my husband. The witness herself says that
I came out of the house and was standing near the door
and saw my husband being beaten. It is correct to say that
the store room where the incident took place is as far from
the Farm hut as the main entrance of the Court campus
from the witness box (the distance from the witness box
to the main entrance of the court campus would be about
40 meters). It is correct to say that the store room was
dark. It is correct to say that after hearing my husband’s
voice, I went to call my father-in-law. It is correct to say
that my father-in-law and other people went to the police
station at night after their arrival.
………..
14. It is correct to say that I told my father-in-law that two
people were wearing masks. It is incorrect to say that I
did not tell my father-in-law the name of Govind. It is
also incorrect to say that I did not mention the name
of Govind while giving a statement to the police.
15. It is correct to say that I have not had any child since
my marriage. It is correct to say that, as I did not have
any child, my husband Bivan made Bindabai his wife by
making her wear bangles. It is correct to say that Binda Bai
has given birth to a son from Bivan. It is incorrect to say
that after Binda Bai had a son, my husband used to have
disputes with me. The witness herself says that Binda Bai
did not let her son touch me. It is correct to say that Binda
Bai did not let her son touch me; therefore there used to
be disputes between Binda Bai and me. It is incorrect to
say that because of disputes between Binda Bai and me,
she used to go to her maternal home. The witness herself
says that Binda Bai used to go to her maternal home on
her own. It is correct to say that three-four social meetings
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 577
Govind Mandavi v. State of Chattisgarh
were held because of Binda Bai going to her maternal
home. It is incorrect to say that it was our fault; therefore
the society separated my father-in-law, my husband and me
from the society. The witness herself says that the people
of our society have not ostracized us. It is incorrect to say
that I used to have a dispute with Binda Bai and hence I
am taking her brother Govind’s name to implicate him. It
is incorrect to say that we were angry with Binda Bai and
her brother Govind because Binda Bai did not return. It
is correct to say that in the social meeting, the accused
Govind had taken his sister Binda Bai’s side.”
(16). It is correct to say that the police brought me to
the tehsil office. It is incorrect to say that at the time of
identification proceedings only the three accused present
in the court were present. The witness herself says that
there were four-five more people with him and he made
me identify each of the accused present in the court three
times. After coming to the tehsil office, the police talked to
me and said that you have to identify them. It is incorrect to
say that the police told me the names of the three accused
present in the court and said that I have to identify them.
It is correct to say that the accused Govind is Bindabai’s
brother. It is correct to say that Govind had been visiting
his sister Bindabai earlier, and hence I knew him earlier.”
[Emphasis supplied]
31. A close analysis of these statements reproduced supra, in context
of the allegations made in the FIR (Exh. P/2), would highlight the
following facts:
i) 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.
ii) 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.
iii) The FIR (Exh. P/2) discloses no material to suggest that, at
the time when Smt. Sukmai Hidko (PW-2) informed Heeralal
578 [2025] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Hidko (PW-2) about the occurrence, she was aware that her
husband had already died.
32. In his examination-in-chief, Heeralal Hidko (PW-1) clearly stated
that his daughter-in-law, Smt. Sukmai Hidko (PW-2) came to his
house and informed him that Govind Mandavi and Mansingh Nureti
had arrived armed with a sickle, taken Bivan into a store room, and
assaulted him with the said weapon.
33. In his cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor, Heeralal Hidko
(PW-1) attempted to modulate his stance and claimed that Smt.
Sukmai Hidko (PW-2) told him that the mask worn by one of the
assailants had fallen off, enabling her to identify the person as
Govind Mandavi.
34. The witness Heeralal Hidko (PW-1), further admitted, in response
to the Public Prosecutor’s suggestion, that Smt. Sukmai Hidko
(PW-2) had told him that Govind Mandavi, along with his companions,
came to the store room, took the deceased-Bivan Hidko away, and
thereafter the assault occurred.
35. Heeralal Hidko (PW-1) further deposed that while Smt. Sukmai
Hidko (PW-2) had initially mentioned the presence of two accused;
she later stated on 21st April, 2021, that the assailants were three
in number. Heeralal Hidko (PW-1) also admitted that his daughter-
in-law, Smt. Sukmai Hidko (PW-2) had disclosed to him the names
of all the three accused. These answers were elicited in response
to the leading questions put by Public Prosecutor.
36. Smt. Sukmai Hidko (PW-2), in her examination-in-chief, stated that
while she and her husband were sleeping in the store room at the
farm, she saw two persons, one of whom was Govind Mandavi,
standing near the store room. In this initial version, she did not allege
that any of the assailants was wearing a mask. She further deposed
that she identified the accused-appellant Govind Mandavi and the
other two accused persons present in Court.
37. It was only after the Public Prosecutor declared her hostile and put
leading questions that she stated she had informed her father-in-
law and other family members, after her husband’s funeral, that the
assailants were not two masked men but three men, and that one
of the masked persons had addressed her as didi, enabling her to
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 579
Govind Mandavi v. State of Chattisgarh
identify him by his voice to be the accused-appellant. She further
claimed that his mask had also fallen off.
38. A very important answer was elicited during the cross-examination
of Smt. Sukmai Hidko (PW-2), on behalf of the accused-appellant
and co-accused Narendra Nag. In response to question No. 14, she
admitted that it was incorrect to say that she had not told her father-
in-law the name of accused-appellant Govind Mandavi.
39. Analysis of these facts leads to the irrefutable conclusion 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.
40. A holistic overview of the evidence would make it clear that Smt.
Sukmai Hidko (PW-2) shared with her father-in-law Heeralal Hidko
(PW-1), the entire sequence of events, which she had seen and
observed during the incident involving assault on her husband. It is
not the case of the prosecution that when the witness Smt. Sukmai
Hidko (PW-2) came rushing to her father-in-law Heeralal Hidko (PW-1)
and gave him the details of the assault, she was so ill or otherwise
incapacitated from disclosing the complete details of the incident to
Heeralal Hidko (PW-1).
41. As a matter of fact, going by the fardbeyan (Exh. P/1), the only
omission in what the witness conveyed to Heeralal Hidko (PW-1)
was the name of accused-appellant Govind Mandavi. This was
far too crucial a fact for the witness to have forgotten or omitted
while narrating the details of the assault on her husband, to her
father-in-law Heeralal Hidko (PW-1). 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-in-law 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
580 [2025] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Govind Mandavi to her father-in-law even though she had identified
him by his voice and as his mask had fallen off.
42. Furthermore, we are of the considered view that a serious doubt
arises with respect to the genuineness of the statement given by
Smt. Sukmai Hidko (PW-2) under Section 161 CrPC on 21st April,
2021. If Smt. Sukmai Hidko (PW-2) had, actually, named the accused-
appellant in that statement, 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).
43. Thus, the belated introduction of the accused-appellant’s name in
Smt. Sukmai Hidko’s (PW-2) 161 CrPC statement dated 21st April,
2021, appears to be a clear manipulation, devised to implicate the
accused-appellant in the crime owing to prior enmity.
44. In an identical fact situation, the effect of such a vital omission in the
first information report was considered by this Court in the case of
Ram Kumar Pandey v. State of M.P.14 The relevant observations
from the said judgment are quoted hereinbelow:-
“8. The abovementioned first information report was
lodged at Police Station Ganj on March 23, 1970 at 9.15
p.m. The time of the incident is stated to be 5 p.m. The
only person mentioned as an eye-witness to the murder
of Harbinder Singh is Joginder Singh. The two daughters
Taranjit Kaur, PW 2, and Amarjit Kaur, PW 6, are mentioned
in the FIR only as persons who saw the wrapping of the
chadar on the wound of Harbinder Singh. What is most
significant is that it is nowhere mentioned in the FIR that
the appellant had stabbed Harbinder Singh at all. It seems
inconceivable that by 9’15 p.m. it would not be known
to Uttam Singh, the father of Harbinder Singh, that the
appellant had inflicted one of the two stab wounds on the
body of Harbinder Singh.
14 AIR 1975 SC 1026.
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 581
Govind Mandavi v. State of Chattisgarh
9. No doubt, an FIR is a previous statement which
can, strictly speaking, be only used to corroborate
or contradict the maker of it. But, in this case, it
had been made by the father of the murdered boy
to whom all the important facts of the occurrence,
so far as they were known up to 9-15 p.m. on March
23, 1970, were bound to have been communicated. If
his daughers had seen the appellant inflicting a blow
on Harbinder Singh, the father would certainly have
mentioned it in the FIR We think that omissions of
such important facts, affecting the probabilities of the
case, are relevant under Section 11 of the Evidence
Act in judging the veracity of the prosecution case.
10. Even Joginder Singh, PW 8, was not an eyewitness
of the occurrence. He merely proves an alleged dying
declaration. He stated that Harbinder Singh (described
by his pet name as “Pappi”) rushed out of his house by
opening its door, and held his hand on his chest with
blood flowing down from it. He deposed that, when he
asked Pappi what had happened, Pappi had stated that
Suresh and Pandey had injured him. It is clear from the
FIR that Joginder Singh had met Uttam Singh before the
FIR was made. Uttam Singh did not mention there that
any dying declaration, indicating that the appellant had
also injured Harbinder Singh, was made by Harbinder
Singh. The omission to mention any injury inflicted on
Harbinder Singh by the appellant in the FIR seems very
significant in the circumstances of this case. Indeed,
according to the version in the FIR, Joginder Singh, who
was in the lane, is said to have arrived while Harbinder
Singh was being injured. Therefore, if this was correct,
the two injuries on Harbinder Singh must also have been
inflicted in the lane outside.
………
17. As regards the second and third points, we are
unable to give credence to the version of the three
582 [2025] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
alleged eyewitnesses as they were not mentioned as
eyewitnesses in the FIR made in the circumstances
indicated above.
18. Lastly, the alleged dying declaration is also not
mentioned in the FIR On the other hand, the FIR,
mentions Joginder Singh who tried to prove the dying
declaration only, as an eyewitness.
……
21. Consequently, we allow this appeal and set aside
the conviction and sentence of the appellant under
Section 302/34, IPC If the appellant has already served
the sentence awarded under Section 324 IPC, as it
stated on his behalf, he will be released forthwith.”
[Emphasis supplied]
45. Hence, 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.
46. 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.
47. The other incriminating circumstance is the purported recovery of
the blood-stained articles said to have been effected pursuant to the
disclosure/memorandum statement(s) of the accused. As has been
mentioned above, none of the recovered articles tested positive for
any particular blood group, and hence, the same cannot be connected
with the crime.
48. Consequently, we are of the firm view that the trial Court as well
as the High Court committed grave errors in facts as well as in law
while appreciating the evidence available on record and convicting
the accused-appellant for the offences alleged.
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 583
Govind Mandavi v. State of Chattisgarh
49. 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.
50. The appeal stands allowed accordingly.
51. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Result of the case: Appeal allowed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Murder"Sign in to search