Omission of the name of the accused in FIR when eyewitness had the knowledge is is a fatal defect

Lack of Accused Identification in Initial Reports Proves Fatal for Prosecution in Chhattisgarh Murder Case

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India overturned the conviction of Govind Mandavi, the appellant in a murder case from Chhattisgarh, due to critical lapses in the prosecution's case. The bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, highlighted the omission of the accused's name in the First Information Report (FIR) and inconsistencies in witness testimonies as pivotal factors that undermined the prosecution's argument.

The case revolved around the murder of Bivan Hidko, for which Govind Mandavi, along with two others, was initially convicted by the Special Judge under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in Kanker. The trial court had sentenced Mandavi to life imprisonment under Sections 302/34 and 460 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. However, while the High Court acquitted the co-accused, it upheld Mandavi's conviction, which was subsequently challenged in the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court's decision emphasized the fundamental flaw in the case-the absence of Mandavi's name in the FIR, despite the alleged identification by an eyewitness, Smt. Sukmai Hidko, the deceased's wife. The Court noted that this omission was not only a procedural lapse but also raised questions about the credibility of the prosecution's narrative.

The judgment further criticized the reliability of the Test Identification Parade (TIP), conducted despite the witness's prior acquaintance with the accused. The Court also deemed the forensic evidence inconclusive, as blood group matching was not established on the recovered articles.

The ruling underscores the judiciary's commitment to ensuring justice through rigorous scrutiny of procedural and evidentiary standards. It serves as a critical reminder of the prosecution's responsibility to establish a coherent and credible case, particularly in serious criminal matters.

Bottom Line:

Omission of the name of the accused in the First Information Report (FIR) when the eyewitness had knowledge of the identity of the accused is a fatal defect that undermines the prosecution's case.

Statutory provision(s): Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302/34, 460; Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(2)(v); Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 161, 313.

Govind Mandavi v. State of Chattisgarh, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2819383