Omission of Accused’s Name by Eyewitness in FIR is a Fatal Lacuna: Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Murder

"Had the Witness Truly Recognized the Assailant, His Name Would Not Have Been Omitted in the FIR", Supreme Court of India delivered a significant judgment in Govind Mandavi v. State of Chhattisgarh, overturning the conviction of the appellant for murder under Sections 302/34 and 460 IPC. The Court held that the omission of the appellant's name in the First Information Report (FIR), despite the accused being well-known to the eyewitness, constituted a material deficiency in the prosecution’s case and fatally undermined its credibility. The Court further observed that the belated and contradictory statements of the key eyewitness, along with an unwarranted Test Identification Parade (TIP), rendered the conviction unsustainable in law.

"A Witness Who Can Describe Every Detail But Omits the Accused’s Name Is Not Credible"

Delivering the judgment, a Division Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta emphatically held:
"The omission of the name of a known accused in the FIR, despite the eyewitness disclosing minute details of the incident to the informant immediately, is a material lacuna. It strikes at the root of the prosecution case and impeaches the credibility of the eyewitness." [Para 41]

The case revolved around the murder of one Bivan Hidko in the night of April 17, 2021, at Village Iragaon, Chhattisgarh. His wife, Sukmai Hidko (PW-2), claimed to be an eyewitness and later identified Govind Mandavi, her husband’s brother-in-law, as one of the assailants. However, crucially, when the FIR was lodged immediately after the incident by her father-in-law (PW-1), based on her narration, the assailants were described merely as "two unknown masked persons" — without any mention of Govind Mandavi or any other known individual.

Despite this, four days later, in her Section 161 CrPC statement, PW-2 changed her version, claiming that Govind’s mask had fallen off during the attack, and she recognized him by both face and voice. The Court found this version to be a “clear manipulation, devised to implicate the accused-appellant owing to prior enmity” [Para 43].

Family Feud and Delayed Accusations

The case had its origins in a family conflict. The deceased, Bivan Hidko, had taken a second wife, Binda Bai (PW-6), sister of the appellant, after PW-2 failed to conceive. Following the birth of a child to Binda Bai, frequent quarrels erupted between the two wives, leading to community panchayat meetings and separation. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, being protective of his sister, had a motive to eliminate Bivan.

On the night of the murder, PW-2 rushed to her father-in-law and narrated the incident. The FIR (Exh. P/2), filed at 7:25 a.m. on April 18, 2021, referred only to “two unknown masked persons”. Later, however, PW-2 claimed that one of the masks fell off during the attack and she identified Govind Mandavi, the appellant.

The Trial Court convicted the appellant and co-accused under Sections 302/34 and 460 IPC, sentencing Govind Mandavi to life imprisonment. The Chhattisgarh High Court acquitted the co-accused but upheld the appellant’s conviction, relying primarily on PW-2’s testimony, her identification of the accused in a TIP, and the recovery of blood-stained articles from the accused.

Can a Belated Identification After Omission in FIR Be Believed?

The Supreme Court framed the issue around the credibility of the eyewitness testimony and the unexplained omission of the accused’s name in the FIR. The Bench held that the belated introduction of the accused’s name, when weighed against the backdrop of prior enmity, was suspect and lacked corroborative value.

The Court noted:
"It is 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..." [Para 41]

TIP Held Unjustified Where Accused Was Already Known to Witness

The Court further discredited the Test Identification Parade conducted on April 22, 2021, where PW-2 identified the appellant. The Bench questioned the very rationale of conducting a TIP when the accused was admittedly well-known to the witness:

"If the witness had actually named the accused, there was no justification for conducting a TIP. The fact that a TIP was conducted suggests the witness could not identify the assailants at the time of the incident." [Para 42]

Human Blood Without Blood Group Linking is Inconsequential

On the recovery of the axe and clothes with human blood, the Court observed that these could not connect the appellant to the crime in the absence of blood group matching. The FSL report noted that the blood samples had disintegrated and were inconclusive.

"Mere detection of human blood without determination of blood group is inconsequential and cannot connect the accused with the crime, especially when the primary evidence is shaky." [Para 47]

Precedent Cited: Ram Kumar Pandey v. State of M.P.

The Supreme Court placed reliance on its earlier decision in Ram Kumar Pandey v. State of M.P., reiterating that omissions of significant facts in the FIR — particularly when the informant had knowledge of those facts — are relevant under Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act and can seriously impair the prosecution's credibility.

"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." – Ram Kumar Pandey [cited at Para 44]

A Case Built on Fabricated Identification and Contradictory Testimony

Summing up the deficiencies in the prosecution case, the Court found the entire narrative of PW-2 riddled with contradictions, embellishments, and driven by personal animosity. The delay in naming the accused, the unjustified TIP, and inconclusive forensic evidence were fatal to the prosecution’s case.

"We are of the firm view that the omission of the names of the accused in the FIR, 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." [Para 45]

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, the conviction set aside, and the appellant was directed to be released forthwith.

Date of Decision: December 8, 2025