Omission of accused’s name in FIR is fatal; Supreme Court quashes conviction and acquits accused

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard an appeal by Govind Mandavi against a judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court which had affirmed his conviction for offences under Sections 302/34 and 460 IPC (and had set aside convictions of two co-accused). The appeal challenged the trial and High Court findings connecting the appellant to the homicide of Bivan Hidko and sought his acquittal.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the trial court and High Court insofar as they convicted the appellant, and acquitted Govind Mandavi, directing his immediate release if not required in any other case. The Court found that the prosecution’s case rested principally on the testimony of the deceased’s wife and the informant, and that material omissions and subsequent improvements in their versions “went to the very root of the matter.” The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “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.” The Court further noted that “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.”

Background The case arose from the death of Bivan Hidko on the night of 17–18 April 2021. The FIR was lodged on 18 April 2021 by Heeralal Hidko on the basis of a merg intimation from his daughter‑in‑law, Smt. Sukmai Hidko, alleging that unknown masked assailants had taken and attacked the deceased. The trial court convicted Govind Mandavi and two co-accused for murder and related offences after a trial that included a Test Identification Parade (TIP), FSL reports detecting human blood on certain recovered articles, and testimony from sixteen prosecution witnesses. The High Court, on appeal, set aside the convictions of two co-accused but affirmed the conviction and life sentence of the appellant.

On appeal to the Supreme Court, defence counsel argued that the FIR did not name the accused though it was based on information from the eyewitness; that the eyewitness’ version materially improved over time (including a change from two to three assailants and the later claim that a mask fell off enabling identification); that the TIP was unexplained and suspect given prior acquaintance; and that FSL results were inconclusive as blood groups could not be established. The State relied on the eyewitness testimony, TIP identification and recoveries to uphold the convictions.

After re‑examining the record, the Supreme Court emphasised admitted prior enmity between the families and recorded inconsistencies and embellishments in the testimony of PW‑1 and PW‑2. The Court held that the non‑naming of the accused in the initial FIR—despite detailed disclosure of other facts—was a material omission that significantly impaired the prosecution case and that the belated identification and the conduct of the TIP raised serious doubts about the genuineness of the identification. The Court found the recoveries insufficiently linked to the crime because serological tests were inconclusive. Citing precedent (Ram Kumar Pandey v. State of M.P.), the Court concluded that the impugned judgments could not stand and ordered acquittal and release of the appellant.

Case No.: 2025 INSC 1399 Case Title: Govind Mandavi v. State of Chhattisgarh Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): B.N. Nishad, Advocate (for Govind Mandavi) For the Respondent(s): Standing Counsel, State of Chhattisgarh