GOVIND MANDAVI versus STATE OF CHATTISGARH

Citation: [2025] 12 S.C.R. 560 · Decided: 08-12-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAM NATH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[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

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.