Omission Of Accused’s Name In FIR Completely Impeaches Credibility Of Prosecution Case: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Accused

The Supreme Court has acquitted a man in murder case, saying that the omission of name of the accused in the FIR (First Information Report) completely impeaches credibility of prosecution case.

A Criminal Appeal was filed against the Judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court, which upheld the conviction of the accused.

The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed, “… 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 Bench said that the two star prosecution witnesses attempted to modulate and improve their versions while deposing on oath and their testimonies are full of embellishments and contradictions.

AOR Pragya Baghel represented the Appellant/Accused, while AOR Prashant Kumar Umrao represented the Respondent/State.

Brief Facts

The Appellant along with two co-accused were put to trial before the Special Judge and upon its conclusion, they were convicted. In Appeal, the High Court set aside the conviction of the two co-accused, whilst upholding the conviction and sentence of the Appellant-accused. As per the prosecution case, a woman submitted an oral report to the police in April 2021. She alleged that her son and daughter-in-law were sleeping inside the farm hut. Her daughter-in-law came home and told her that two unknown masked persons came, called and woke up her husband (informant’s son) and took him away from the farm hut.

She followed them and stood on the door and after a while, her husband screamed, because of which she got scared and ran away. On getting this news, the informant went to the field along with others, and found her son lying dead, soaked in blood. Based on this, an FIR was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) against unknown assailants. After four days of the incident, 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.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court in view of the above facts, noted, “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).”

The Court remarked that the only omission in what the witness conveyed was the name of accused-Appellant and 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.

“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”, it said.

The Court added that such 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, suggesting that she had fallen ill and was therefore prevented from disclosing the name of Appellant to her father-in-law even though she had identified him by his voice and as his mask had fallen off.

“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)”, it observed.

The Court was of the view that the belated introduction of the Appellant’s name appears to be a clear manipulation, devised to implicate him in the crime owing to prior enmity.

Conclusion

“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”, it further said.

The Court also noted that none of the recovered articles tested positive for any particular blood group, and hence, the same cannot be connected with the crime.

“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”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeal, set aside the impugned Judgment, and acquitted the accused.

Cause Title- Govind Mandavi v. State of Chhattisgarh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1399)

Appearance:

Appellant: AOR Pragya Baghel and Advocate Azad Bansala.

Respondent: AOR Prashant Kumar Umrao and Advocate Abhishek Pandey.

Click here to read/download the Judgment