Govind Mandavi vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

2025 INSC 1399
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s).13533 of 2025)


GOVIND MANDAVI ….APPELLANT(S)


VERSUS


STATE OF CHATTISGARH ….RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T
Mehta, J.

1. Heard.
2. Leave granted.
1
3. The appellant-Govind Mandavi , along with co-
accused Narender Nag and Mansingh Nureti (both of
whom stand acquitted by the High Court of
2
Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur ), were put to trial before
the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and

1
Hereinafter, referred to as the “accused-appellant”.
2
Hereinafter, referred to as the “High Court”.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SONIA BHASIN
Date: 2025.12.08
18:41:59 IST
Reason:
1


Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, North
3
Bastar, Kanker , in Special Penal Case No. 65 of
2021. Upon conclusion of the trial, vide judgment
th
and order dated 28 January, 2023, the accused-
appellant and co-accused Mansingh Nureti were
convicted for the offences punishable under Sections
4
302/34 and 460 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 , and
were sentenced in the following manner:

4. Accused Narender Nag was held guilty of the
offences punishable under Section 302/34 IPC and
Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
5
1989 , and was sentenced as follows:



3
Hereinafter, referred to as the “trial Court”.
4
For short, ‘IPC’.
5
For short, ‘SC/ST Act’.
2

5. In appeal, the High Court set aside the
conviction of the two co-accused, Narender Nag and
Mansingh Nureti, whilst upholding the conviction
and sentence of the present accused-appellant, vide
th
the common judgment and order dated 14 January,
2025, passed in the clubbed criminal appeals,
including Criminal Appeal No. 1298 of 2023 preferred
by the accused-appellant.
Factual Background
6. Succinctly stated, facts germane for
adjudication of the present appeal are set out
hereinbelow.
7. Heeralal Hidko (PW-1) submitted a merg
6
intimation (oral report) to the SHO, Police Station
Bhanupratappur, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh, on

6
(Exh P/1).
3


th
18 April, 2021, at about 7:25 a.m., alleging inter
alia : -
“I am a Native resident of Village Iragaon,
Durgupara, I work in Farming sector. Like every
day routine, on 17/04/2021, my son Bivan and
daughter-in-law Sukmai Hidko both (sic) were
sleeping inside the Farm hut around 11:30 my
daughter-in-law Sukmai came home and told me
that "2 unknown masked persons came at around
11:00 one of whom was tall and another was
short-heighted and thin and held sickle In his
hand. They called and woke up my husband Bivan
and took him away from the farm hut, I followed
them and stood on the door. After a while, my
husband screamed "Aye Daayi! O Daayii" I got
scared and ran away." As soon as I got this news,
I took Sahdev Kadiyam, Kushal Kawde and
Dhannaram Anchala, and others with me to my
field and in the light of my torch, I found my son
Bivan lying dead, soaked in blood. My son is dead,
some unknown person has killed my son with a
sharp weapon. Due to the midnight and it being a
forest area, I took care of the dead body of my son,
and in the morning, I came here to report.”

8. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, First
7 th
Information Report No. 106 of 2021, dated 18 April,
2021, came to be registered at the Police Station for
the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC
against unknown assailants.
9. Evidently, a perusal of the FIR (Exh. P/2) makes
it clear that the informant Heeralal Hidko (PW-1) was

7
For short, ‘FIR’; Exh. P/2.
4


not an eyewitness to the incident; rather, his
knowledge of the occurrence was entirely based on
the information furnished to him by Smt. Sukmai
Hidko (PW-2), his daughter-in-law and wife of the
deceased Bivan Hidko.
10. The statement of Smt. Sukmai Hidko (PW-2),
wife of the deceased and daughter-in-law of Heeralal
Hidko (PW-1), under Section 161 of the Code of
8
Criminal Procedure, 1973 came to be recorded on
st
21 April, 2021, i.e., after four days of the incident
and at that point of time, 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-Govind
Mandavi.
11. Acting upon the material collected during the
course of investigation, the Investigating Officer, Shri
Damon Lal Bhuarya (PW-14), apprehended the
accused-appellant as well as the two co-accused on
nd
22 April, 2021, as per duly prepared arrest
9
memoranda . Acting in furtherance of the respective

8
For short, ‘CrPC’.
9
Exh. P/21-23.
5


10
disclosure/memorandum statements furnished by
all the three accused, the police effected the
recoveries attributed to them as per the following
table: -

10
Exh. P/14, 16, and 18.
6


12. The prosecution alleged that all recovered
articles were forwarded to the Regional Forensic
Science Laboratory, Jagdalpur (Bastar), for chemical
11
and serological examination. As per the FSL report ,
human blood was detected on the axe recovered from
the accused-appellant (Article-C), the shoes seized
from him (Article-E), the T-shirt and full pant of co-
accused Mansingh Nureti (Articles F-1 and F-2), the
full pant and towel attributed to co-accused Narender
Nag (Articles G-1 and G-3), as well as the shirt and
half-pant of the deceased (Articles H-1 and H-2).
However, the blood group could not be determined as
the serology report noted that the samples had
disintegrated and the result was, therefore,
inconclusive.
13. The accused–appellant was subjected to a Test
12
Identification Parade conducted by Moksha
nd
Dewangan, Tahsildar (PW-16), on 22 April, 2021,
during which he is alleged to have been identified by
the purported eyewitness, Smt. Sukmai Hidko (PW-
2).

11
Exh. P/40.
12
For short, ‘TIP’.
7


14. Pursuant to the filing of the chargesheet, the
trial Court proceeded to frame charges against all the
three charge-sheeted accused.
15. The accused denied the charges and claimed
trial.
16. To bring home the charge against the accused
persons, the prosecution examined as many as
sixteen witnesses and exhibited certain documents
and material objects. The incriminating material
emerging from the prosecution evidence was put to
the accused persons in their examination under
Section 313 CrPC, wherein they denied the
allegations in toto , asserting that they had been
falsely implicated. No evidence was adduced in
defence.
17. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary
evidence brought on record, and after considering the
submissions advanced on behalf of the prosecution
and the defence, the learned trial Judge proceeded to
convict and sentence all the three accused persons
th
as aforesaid, vide judgment dated 28 January,
2023.
18. In appeal, the High Court affirmed the
conviction of the accused-appellant while setting
8


aside the conviction of the remaining two co-accused,
th
vide judgment dated 14 January, 2025. The High
Court principally relied upon the testimony of Smt.
Sukmai Hidko (PW-2); her identification of the
accused-appellant in the TIP, which was proved by
the Executive Magistrate ( Tahsildar ) Moksha
Dewangan (PW-16) and the dock identification. The
Court further drew support from the FSL report,
noting that human blood was detected on the axe and
shoes recovered pursuant to the memorandum
statement of the accused-appellant, duly proved
through the testimony of Sahdev Kadyam (PW-7).
19. The High Court additionally held that the motive
attributed to the accused-appellant stood firmly
established on the basis of the evidence of PW-1, PW-
2, PW-4, PW-6, PW-7, PW-8, and PW-9, who
consistently deposed that the accused-appellant is
the brother of Binda Bai (PW-6), the second wife of
the deceased. The record reflected that the deceased
had contracted a second marriage with Binda Bai
(PW-6), as his first wife, Smt. Sukmai Hidko (PW-2),
was unable to conceive. A son was born from the
second wedlock, giving rise to frequent quarrels
between the two wives over taking the child in the lap.
9


Owing to these disputes, Binda Bai (PW-6) began
residing at her parental home, and community
panchayat meetings were convened on multiple
occasions, during which altercations also ensued.
The High Court concluded that, as the accused-
appellant supported his sister and shared her
grievances against the deceased and his family, a
strong motive existed for him to commit the offence.
20. The said judgment now forms the subject
matter of challenge in the present appeal by special
leave.
Submissions on behalf of the accused-appellant
21. Learned counsel appearing for the accused-
appellant advanced the following submissions in
assailing the conviction recorded by the trial Court
and consequently affirmed by the High Court:
(i) That the accused-appellant was not named in
13
the FIR (Exh. P/2) lodged by Heeralal Hidko
(PW-1). It stands admitted that PW-1 lodged
the report purely on the basis of the
information furnished to him by the alleged
eye-witness Smt. Sukmai Hidko (PW-2).

13
Exh. P/2.
10


Thus, omission to mention the name of the
accused in the very first version, despite such
claimed knowledge, is a material lacuna
which, according to learned counsel, goes to
the root of the matter and gravely
undermines the credibility of the prosecution
case.

(ii) That the explanation tendered by the
prosecution for the omission of identity of the
accused in the FIR (Exh. P/2), that the
informant, Heeralal Hidko (PW-1), was not an
eye-witness, and that Smt. Sukmai Hidko
(PW-2) allegedly fell ill upon witnessing the
assault, is wholly implausible. Learned
counsel submitted that in the earliest version
narrated by Smt. Sukmai Hidko (PW-2) to her
father-in-law immediately after the incident,
it was pertinently stated that the assailants
had covered their faces with masks. However,
in stark contrast, her statements recorded
after significant gap, under Sections 161
st
CrPC and 164 CrPC on 21 April, 2021 and
st
21 April, 2024 respectively, contain
11


substantial and material improvements,
including her claim of having identified the
accused-appellant as his mask moved during
the incident. Such embellished version,
introduced after an unexplained delay, is
inherently unreliable and wholly unworthy of
credence.

(iii) That the conduct of the witness belies the
prosecution story. Smt. Sukmai Hidko (PW-
2) was indeed conscious and capable of
narrating the incident, as is evident from the
fact that the informant Heeralal Hidko (PW-
1), could lodge the merg intimation (Exh P/1)
on the basis of her version; thus, there was
no reason for her to omit the names of the
assailants at that very earliest point of time.
Learned counsel submitted that the contents
of the merg intimation (Exh P/1)
unmistakably demonstrate that Smt. Sukami
Hidko (PW-2) had provided a detailed
information of the incident to her father-in-
law; hence, had she actually identified any of
the perpetrators, she would not have omitted
12


to disclose their names to him. Consequently,
the absence of the name of the accused-
appellant in the merg intimation (Exh. P/1)
strikes at the root of the prosecution case.
(iv) That the prosecution’s attempt to justify the
delayed disclosure of the names of the
assailant on the pretext of the illness of Smt.
Sukmai Hidko (PW-2) is wholly unconvincing.
There is no such corroborative evidence in
form of any medical report etc. to support the
assertion that Smt. Sukmai Hidko (PW-2)
was in such a debilitated state as to be
incapable of naming her husband’s assailant
for three consecutive days. It stands admitted
on record that the accused-appellant is the
brother of Smt. Binda Bai (PW-6), the second
wife of the deceased-Bivan Hidko, and that
there existed palpable animosity between the
two branches of the family, an aspect borne
out from the testimonies of Heeralal Hidko
(PW-1) and Smt. Sukmai Hidko (PW-2). In
this backdrop, the assertion made by Smt.
Sukmai Hidko (PW-2), that the accused-
13


appellant’s mask purportedly fell off during
the assault, enabling her to identify him, at a
belated point in time when her statements
under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC were
recorded, is a clear embellishment. This
belated story, according to learned counsel,
reflects a deliberate attempt by the witness to
falsely implicate the appellant owing to the
pre-existing enmity.
(v) That as the accused-appellant was well
known to Smt. Sukmai Hidko (PW-2) from the
prosecution’s attempt to establish his
complicity by conducting a TIP indicates that
Smt. Sukmai Hidko (PW-2) could not identify
any of the assailants at the time of the
incident. Once the accused had been named
by the witness, there would be no rationale
for holding a TIP of the same accused.
(vi) That the recoveries on which the trial Court
as well as the High Court relied heavily are
inconsequential, because mere detection of
human blood on the articles does not, by
itself, provide any corroboration to the
14


otherwise flimsy evidence of the witnesses.
The prosecution has neither proved the blood
group on the articles allegedly recovered at
the instance of the accused nor the blood
group of the deceased, and hence, the
recoveries are rendered inconsequential.
Furthermore, the link evidence essential to
prove the sanctity of the material objects was
not proved by leading credible evidence.
On these grounds, learned counsel implored the
Court to accept the appeal, set aside the conviction
of the accused-appellant, and direct his release from
prison.
Submissions on behalf of the respondent-State
22. Per contra , learned standing counsel for the
State of Chhattisgarh supported the impugned
judgment. He submitted that the accused-appellant
was named in the first statement under section 161
CrPC of the wife of the deceased, Smt. Sukmai Hidko
(PW-2), which was recorded immediately after she
regained strength. He urged that it was entirely
natural for a woman from a rural background, having
witnessed a brutal assault on her husband, to be in
15


a state of deep shock, and hence, her inability to
immediately disclose the names of the assailants to
her father-in-law, Heeralal Hidko (PW-1), was not
unusual or unnatural. He further urged that the
accused-appellant, having been named and identified
by the eyewitness Smt. Sukmai Hidko (PW-2) in her
sworn testimony, coupled with her identification of
the accused-appellant in the TIP and the plausible
explanation furnished for the delayed disclosure,
renders her testimony wholly reliable.
23. Thus, learned counsel urged that the conviction
of the accused-appellant as recorded by the trial
Court and affirmed by the High Court based on
concurrent findings of fact does not warrant any
interference.
Discussion and Analysis
24. We have given our thoughtful consideration to
the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the
parties and have carefully re-analysed the evidence
available on record.
25. At the outset, we may observe that the factum
of the death of Bivan Hidko being homicidal is not in
dispute, which stands established from the testimony
of the medical jurist Dr. A.K. Dhruw (PW-11). Hence,
16


we need not burden the judgment by dwelling further
on this aspect of the prosecution case.
26. It is also undisputed that the FIR (Exh. P/2) was
lodged on the basis of the merg statement (Exh. P/1)
of Heeralal Hidko (PW-1), given at Police Station
Bhanupratappur, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh on
th
18 April, 2021 at 7:25 a.m., wherein he categorically
stated that his daughter-in-law came to him at about
11:30 p.m. and informed him that two unknown
masked persons came at around 11:00 p.m., one of
whom was tall, while the other was short-heighted
and lean, and was holding a sickle in his hand. They
called out to Bivan, woke him up, and took him away
from the farm hut. Smt. Sukmai Hidko (PW-2)
followed them and stood at the door, and upon
hearing her husband scream, she got scared, and ran
away.
27. On receiving this information, the informant
Heeralal Hidko (PW-1), accompanied by Sahdev
Kadiyam (PW-7), Kushal Kawde (PW-3), Ramprasad
Netam, and Ghana Anchala, proceeded to the field
where, in the light of a torch, they found Bivan Hidko
lying dead in a pool of blood. It was specifically
alleged in the merg information (Exh P/1) that some
17


unknown persons had assaulted and killed Bivan
with a sharp-edged weapon.
28. 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
that during the subsisting marriage of Smt. Sukmai
Hidko (PW-2) with the deceased Bivan Hidko, he
married Smt. Binda Bai (PW-6), the sister of the
present accused-appellant, and serious differences
had arisen between the parties owing to this
relationship. Panchayats were convened, wherein
quarrels flared up between them. It is in this
backdrop of prior enmity that we shall proceed to
appreciate the evidence of the two star witnesses,
Heeralal Hidko (PW-1) and Smt. Sukmai Hidko (PW-
2), on whose testimony the entire prosecution case
hinges.
29. Heeralal Hidko (PW-1) testified as below: -
“(1) I know the three accused (Govind Mandavi,
Narendra Nag, Mansingh Nureti) in the Court.
Bivan Hidko was my son who has died. Our caste
is Gond.
(2) I live in Durgupara village of Iragaon. I have a
big Farm hut in my field at Imlipara. My son
Bivan Hidko and his wife Sukmai Hidko lived in
the Farm hut built in the field. On 17.04.2021,
18


at around 11:00 pm, my daughter-in-law
Sukmai Hidko came to my house and told me
that Govind and Mansingh came with sickle, at
that time, I and my husband were sleeping on
separate cots. Govind and Mansingh took my
husband Bivan to the store room and hit him on
the face with the sickle. On being told the above
by my daughter-in-law, I, Sahdev Kadiyam,
Kushal Kaudo, Ramprasad Netam, Ghana
Anchala went to the spot and saw that my son
Bivan Hidko was lying on his back on the floor in
the store room and there was an injury on his
face near his right eye and blood was oozing from
there.
(3) I reported the incident on 18.04.2021. When
the Merg intimation was read out to the witness,
he said that he had written such a report. The
Merg intimation was marked ExP/01, and when
the FIR was read out to the witness, he said that
he had written such a report. The FIR was
marked ExP/02.”

The witness was declared hostile by the
Public Prosecutor and was confronted with
leading questions:
“(8). It is correct to say that my son Bivan Hidko
has two wives, his first wife is Sukmai Hidko and
his second wife is Bindabai. It is correct to say
that Bindabai was staying with her son at her
maternal home in village Ghotha two months
before the incident. I do not know that there was
a quarrel between my son Bivan and his wife
Bindabai. It is correct to say that a meeting was
held in village Ghotha regarding Bivan and his
wife Bindabai. It is correct to say that in the said
meeting Bindabai had threatened Bivan.
(9). It is correct to say that Sukmai Hidko told me
that a person was wearing a mask, mask opened
and he saw him who was Govind. It is correct to
say that Govind used to visit his sister Bindabai's
house, so Govind knew that Bivan sleeps in the
19


Farm hut. It is correct to say that Sukmai told
that Govind came to the store room Farm hut
with his two other companions as per the plan
on the night of 17.04.2021 and Govind along
with one of his companions went inside the shed
with a sickle and his other companion hid in the
cowshed. It is correct to say that Sukmai told
that when Govind came out with Bivan, all the
three companions together took Bivan to the
store room about 50 meters away and hit him
with a fatal stick with the sickle They attacked
and killed him. It is correct to say that my
daughter-in-law Sukma had told that there
were two masked men. It is correct to say
that my daughter-in-law Sukmai was not well
at that time and she told that she had gone
to sleep due to her ill health. It is correct to
say that after the last rites of the deceased,
on 21.04.2021, Sukmai Bai had told that
there were not two but three unknown
masked men. It is correct to say that my
daughter-in-law Sukmai Bai had told the
names of the three accused. It is correct to
say that Sukmai Bai told that the above
three persons together killed Bivan. I had
told the above things to the police while
giving the statement of ExP/03 and ExP/04.
……..
(13). I do not know about the incident myself but
my daughter-in-law Sukmai told me about it. It
is incorrect to say that I did not go to the spot.
(14). It is incorrect to say that the police did not
read out to me what was written in the FIR and
the and the merg intimation. The witness himself
says that they read it out to me. It is correct to
say that at the time of writing the merg
intimation and the First Information Report, I
had mentioned two unknown masked men. It is
correct to say that at that time my daughter-in-
law had told about two unknown masked men.
It is correct to say that when the police
20


interrogated me, I had told about two unknown
masked men.
…….
(16) It is correct to say that Bivan made Bindabai
wear bangles, as Sukmai did not give birth to a
child. It is correct to say that Bivan has a son
from Bindabai. It is incorrect to say that after
Bindabai gave birth to a son, since then there
used to be quarrels between Bivan and Bindabai.
The witness himself says that Bindabai did not
allow Sukmai to touch her son, therefore, there
used to be quarrels between Bindabai and
Sukmai. It is correct to say that many social
meetings were held regarding the quarrel
between Bindabai and Sukmai. The witness
himself says that Bindabai and Sukmai were
counselled in the social meetings. It is correct to
say that due to this quarrel, Bindabai was living
at her maternal home.”
[Emphasis supplied]

30. The sole eye-witness Smt. Sukmai Hidko (PW-2)
testified as follows:
“(2). I lived with my husband Bivan in a store
room Farm hut situated in Imalipara of village
Iragaon. On the date of incident, I was with my
husband in the Farm hut. On the night of
incident, I and my husband were sleeping in
store room Farm hut when both the accused
present in Court including Govind were standing
near the door of our store room Farm hut. They
opened the door of the Farm hut and entered the
house and Govind asked my husband to go
outside. My husband refused to go outside then
Govind caught him and took him to store room
and Govind hit my husband with sickle. My
husband called out saying 'Aye Dai O'. After this,
I went to my father-in-law and told him the above
incident. After this, my father-in-law came to
21


store room Farm hut with some people. After
this, he went to the police station to report the
same night.
(3). When the police interrogated me, I told them
what I had seen. The police interrogated me
twice.
………..
(6). I went to the Tehsil office of
Bhanupratappur. After the identification
proceedings were conducted there, I
identified Govind and the other two accused
present in the Court .”

The public prosecutor declared the witness to be
hostile and put her leading questions.
“(7). It is correct to say that I was not able to
have a child, so my husband, Bivan, made
Bindabai wear bangles and married her. It is
correct to say that Bindabai has a son from
Bivan. I do not know that Bivan doubted
Bindabai's character. The witness herself says
that both Bivan and Bindabai lived well. It is
incorrect to say that Bivan doubted Bindabai's
character, so she used to go to her maternal
home. The witness herself says that Bindabai
used to go to her maternal home without
informing, so two-three social meetings were
held and Govind beat up the wife in the social
meeting. It is correct to say that in the social
meeting, Govind had threatened my husband
Bivan that he will take care of him/he brought
Binda Bai back after three social meetings.
Bindabai went to her maternal home for the
fourth time and did not return after that. The
witness himself says that when the fourth
social meeting was held, Govind bad said that
he would take care of my husband.
(8). The date of the incident was Saturday,
17th. I cannot say that the date was
17.04.2021. it is correct to say that on the date
of the incident, my health was not good, so I
22


was sleeping after taking medicine. It is correct
to say that I had told my father-in-law about the
incident and my health was not good, so I went
to sleep after telling my father-in-law about the
incident.
(9). It is correct to say that after my husband's
funeral, I told my father-in-law, bother-in-law
and other family members that there were not
two masked men but three men. It is correct to
say that I asked the masked men where they
were taking my husband. It is correct to say
that one of the masked men called me 'didi' and
I tried to escape his voice. I had recognised him
and his mask had also fallen off. It is correct to
say that he was Govind. The witness herself
says that I recognised Govind when he said
'Chal Didi' to me.
(10). At the time of the incident, Bindabai was
staying at her maternal home. Govind must
have killed Bivan, thinking that Bivan would
not keep Bindabai. It is correct to say that I had
told all the above facts to the police while giving
the statement of ExP/05 and ExP/06.”

Cross-examination by Shri B.N. Nishad Advocate
on behalf of the accused Govind Mandavi and
Narendra Nag

“12. It is incorrect to say that two people came
wearing masks. The witness herself says that
two people came in the shade of the house, and
one person was standing near the shade door.
It is correct to say that the people who came
were wearing masks. It is incorrect to say that I
could not recognize any of them because they
were wearing masks. The witness herself says
that I recognized Govind. It is incorrect to say
that those people took my husband out of the
house, and then I went to tell my father-in-law.
The witness herself says that those people took
my husband out of the house and beat my
23


husband, then my husband shouted 'Aye Dai
O' and after that I went to tell my father-in-law.
It is incorrect to say that I did not see who killed
my husband. The witness herself says that I
came out of the house and was standing near
the door and saw my husband being beaten. It
is correct to say that the store room where the
incident took place is as far from the Farm hut
as the main entrance of the Court campus from
the witness box (the distance from the witness
box to the main entrance of the court campus
would be about 40 meters). It is correct to say
that the store room was dark. It is correct to say
that after hearing my husband's voice, I went to
call my father-in-law. It is correct to say that my
father-in-law and other people went to the
police station at night after their arrival.
………..
14. It is correct to say that I told my father-in-
law that two people were wearing masks. It is
incorrect to say that I did not tell my father-
in-law the name of Govind. It is also
incorrect to say that I did not mention the
name of Govind while giving a statement to
the police.
15. It is correct to say that I have not had any
child since my marriage. It is correct to say
that, as I did not have any child, my husband
Bivan made Bindabai his wife by making her
wear bangles. It is correct to say that Binda Bai
has given birth to a son from Bivan. It is
incorrect to say that after Binda Bai had a son,
my husband used to have disputes with me.
The witness herself says that Binda Bai did not
let her son touch me. It is correct to say that
Binda Bai did not let her son touch me;
therefore there used to be disputes between
Binda Bai and me. It is incorrect to say that
because of disputes between Binda Bai and me,
she used to go to her maternal home. The
witness herself says that Binda Bai used to go
24


to her maternal home on her own. It is correct
to say that three-four social meetings were held
because of Binda Bai going to her maternal
home. It is incorrect to say that it was our fault;
therefore the society separated my father-in-
law, my husband and me from the society. The
witness herself says that the people of our
society have not ostracized us. It is incorrect to
say that I used to have a dispute with Binda Bai
and hence I am taking her brother Govind's
name to implicate him. It is incorrect to say that
we were angry with Binda Bai and her brother
Govind because Binda Bai did not return. It is
correct to say that in the social meeting, the
accused Govind had taken his sister Binda
Bai's side.”
(16). It is correct to say that the police brought
me to the tehsil office. It is incorrect to say that
at the time of identification proceedings only
the three accused present in the court were
present. The witness herself says that there
were four-five more people with him and he
made me identify each of the accused present
in the court three times. After coming to the
tehsil office, the police talked to me and said
that you have to identify them. It is incorrect to
say that the police told me the names of the
three accused present in the court and said
that I have to identify them. It is correct to say
that the accused Govind is Bindabai's brother.
It is correct to say that Govind had been visiting
his sister Bindabai earlier, and hence I knew
him earlier.”
[Emphasis supplied]

31. A close analysis of these statements reproduced
supra , in context of the allegations made in the FIR
(Exh. P/2), would highlight the following facts:
25


i) The FIR (Exh. P/2) contains no assertion that
the mask of any of the assailants fell off
during the incident, or that the eye-witness
(deceased’s wife), Smt. Sukmai Hidko (PW-2)
was thereby able to identify any of the
assailants.
ii) There is no assertion in the FIR (Exh. P/2)
that Smt. Sukmai Hidko (PW-2) had fallen ill
or was not in a position to speak after the
incident.
iii) The FIR (Exh. P/2) discloses no material to
suggest that, at the time when Smt. Sukmai
Hidko (PW-2) informed Heeralal Hidko (PW-2)
about the occurrence, she was aware that her
husband had already died.
32. In his examination-in-chief, Heeralal Hidko
(PW-1) clearly stated that his daughter-in-law, Smt.
Sukmai Hidko (PW-2) came to his house and
informed him that Govind Mandavi and Mansingh
Nureti had arrived armed with a sickle, taken Bivan
into a store room, and assaulted him with the said
weapon.
26


33. In his cross-examination by the Public
Prosecutor, Heeralal Hidko (PW-1) attempted to
modulate his stance and claimed that Smt. Sukmai
Hidko (PW-2) told him that the mask worn by one of
the assailants had fallen off, enabling her to identify
the person as Govind Mandavi.
34. The witness Heeralal Hidko (PW-1), further
admitted, in response to the Public Prosecutor’s
suggestion, that Smt. Sukmai Hidko (PW-2) had told
him that Govind Mandavi, along with his
companions, came to the store room, took the
deceased-Bivan Hidko away, and thereafter the
assault occurred.
35. Heeralal Hidko (PW-1) further deposed that
while Smt. Sukmai Hidko (PW-2) had initially
mentioned the presence of two accused; she later
st
stated on 21 April, 2021, that the assailants were
three in number. Heeralal Hidko (PW-1) also admitted
that his daughter-in-law, Smt. Sukmai Hidko (PW-2)
had disclosed to him the names of all the three
accused. These answers were elicited in response to
the leading questions put by Public Prosecutor.
36. Smt. Sukmai Hidko (PW-2), in her examination-
in-chief, stated that while she and her husband were
27


sleeping in the store room at the farm, she saw two
persons, one of whom was Govind Mandavi, standing
near the store room. In this initial version, she did
not allege that any of the assailants was wearing a
mask. She further deposed that she identified the
accused-appellant Govind Mandavi and the other two
accused persons present in Court.
37. It was only after the Public Prosecutor declared
her hostile and put leading questions that she stated
she had informed her father-in-law and other family
members, after her husband’s funeral, that the
assailants were not two masked men but three men,
and that one of the masked persons had addressed
her as , enabling her to identify him by his voice
didi
to be the accused-appellant. She further claimed that
his mask had also fallen off.
38. A very important answer was elicited during the
cross-examination of Smt. Sukmai Hidko (PW-2), on
behalf of the accused-appellant and co-accused
Narendra Nag. In response to question No. 14, she
admitted that it was incorrect to say that she had not
told her father-in-law the name of accused-appellant
Govind Mandavi.
28


39. Analysis of these facts leads to the irrefutable
conclusion that the two star prosecution witnesses
(PW-1 and PW-2) have attempted to modulate and
improve their versions while deposing on oath. Their
testimonies are full of embellishments and
contradictions.
40. 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).
41. As a matter of fact, going by the fardbeyan (Exh.
P/1) the only omission in what the witness conveyed
,
to Heeralal Hidko (PW-1) was the name of accused-
appellant Govind Mandavi. 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,
29


to her father-in-law Heeralal Hidko (PW-1). 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. This 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 of Smt. Sukmai Hidko
(PW-2) suggesting that she had fallen ill and was
therefore prevented from disclosing the name of
Govind Mandavi to her father-in-law even though she
had identified him by his voice and as his mask had
fallen off.
42. 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,
30


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).
43. Thus, the belated introduction of the accused-
appellant’s name in Smt. Sukmai Hidko’s (PW-2) 161
st
CrPC statement dated 21 April, 2021, appears to be
a clear manipulation, devised to implicate the
accused-appellant in the crime owing to prior enmity.
44. In an identical fact situation, the effect of such
a vital omission in the first information report was
considered by this Court in the case of Ram Kumar
14
Pandey v. State of M.P. The relevant observations
from the said judgment are quoted hereinbelow:-
“8. The abovementioned first information report
was lodged at Police Station Ganj on March 23,
1970 at 9.15 p.m. The time of the incident is
stated to be 5 p.m. The only person mentioned as
an eye-witness to the murder of Harbinder Singh

14
AIR 1975 SC 1026.
31


is Joginder Singh. The two daughters Taranjit
Kaur, PW 2, and Amarjit Kaur, PW 6, are
mentioned in the FIR only as persons who saw the
wrapping of the chadar on the wound of
Harbinder Singh. What is most significant is that
it is nowhere mentioned in the FIR that the
appellant had stabbed Harbinder Singh at all. It
seems inconceivable that by 9'15 p.m. it would not
be known to Uttam Singh, the father of Harbinder
Singh, that the appellant had inflicted one of the
two stab wounds on the body of Harbinder Singh.

9. No doubt, an FIR is a previous statement
which can, strictly speaking, be only used to
corroborate or contradict the maker of it. But,
in this case, it had been made by the father of
the murdered boy to whom all the important
facts of the occurrence, so far as they were
known up to 9-15 p.m. on March 23, 1970,
were bound to have been communicated. If his
daughers had seen the appellant inflicting a
blow on Harbinder Singh, the father would
certainly have mentioned it in the FIR We
think that 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.

10. Even Joginder Singh, PW 8, was not an
eyewitness of the occurrence. He merely proves an
alleged dying declaration. He stated that
Harbinder Singh (described by his pet name as
“Pappi”) rushed out of his house by opening its
door, and held his hand on his chest with blood
flowing down from it. He deposed that, when he
asked Pappi what had happened, Pappi had
32


stated that Suresh and Pandey had injured him.
It is clear from the FIR that Joginder Singh had
met Uttam Singh before the FIR was made. Uttam
Singh did not mention there that any dying
declaration, indicating that the appellant had also
injured Harbinder Singh, was made by Harbinder
Singh. The omission to mention any injury
inflicted on Harbinder Singh by the appellant
in the FIR seems very significant in the
circumstances of this case. Indeed, according to
the version in the FIR, Joginder Singh, who was
in the lane, is said to have arrived while Harbinder
Singh was being injured. Therefore, if this was
correct, the two injuries on Harbinder Singh must
also have been inflicted in the lane outside.
………
17. As regards the second and third points, we
are unable to give credence to the version of
the three alleged eyewitnesses as they were
not mentioned as eyewitnesses in the FIR
made in the circumstances indicated above.

18. Lastly, the alleged dying declaration is also
not mentioned in the FIR On the other hand,
the FIR, mentions Joginder Singh who tried to
prove the dying declaration only, as an
eyewitness.
……
21. Consequently, we allow this appeal and set
aside the conviction and sentence of the
appellant under Section 302/34, IPC If the
appellant has already served the sentence
awarded under Section 324 IPC, as it stated on
his behalf, he will be released forthwith.”
[Emphasis supplied]

33


45. 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.
46. 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.
47. The other incriminating circumstance is the
purported recovery of the blood-stained articles said
to have been effected pursuant to the
disclosure/memorandum statement(s) of the
accused. As has been mentioned above, none of the
recovered articles tested positive for any particular
blood group, and hence, the same cannot be
connected with the crime.
48. 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
34


evidence available on record and convicting the
accused-appellant for the offences alleged.
49. The impugned judgments do not stand to
scrutiny and are hereby set aside. The accused-
appellant is acquitted of the charges. He shall be
released forthwith from custody, if not required in
any other case.
50. The appeal stands allowed accordingly.
51. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.

….……………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)


...…………………….J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 08, 2025.



35