'Failure To Name Known Accused In FIR A Crucial Omission', Supreme Court Sets Aside Murder Conviction

The Supreme Court on Monday (December 8) set aside the conviction of a man in a murder case, observing that the prosecution's case failed to prove the guilt beyond a reasonable doubt due to a crucial omission in the FIR, where the informant, despite knowing the accused's identity, failed to name him in the FIR.

A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta heard the case, noting that the informant, the deceased's father, failed to disclose the appellant-accused's identity in the FIR, despite having been informed of it by his daughter-in-law, i.e., the deceased's wife. This omission, the Court held, struck at the very heart of the prosecution's case

The case stemmed from the murder of a man in a village in Chhattisgarh, where two masked men allegedly attacked him at night. His father (PW-1) lodged the FIR based solely on the account of PW-2, the deceased's wife and the sole eyewitness, who initially described only masked, unidentified assailants. Four days later, however, PW-2 claimed in her Section 161 CrPC statement that she had recognised one attacker, i.e., the Appellant, the deceased's brother-in-law, alleging his mask slipped and she identified him by voice. The prosecution relied heavily on this delayed identification, attributing the omission to name him in FIR to shock and illness of the PW-2.

A judgment authored by Justice Vikram Nath found this omission a significant lapse in the prosecution's case, observing that:

“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-inlaw 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.”

In support of its conclusion, the Court relied on Ram Kumar Pandey v. State of M.P., AIR 1975 SC 1026, noting that a material omission to disclose the accused's identity, despite being informed of their name and particulars, can be fatal to the prosecution. Such an omission, the Court observed, renders the fact relevant under Section 11 of the Evidence Act as it directly affects the probability of the prosecution's case.

“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 court observed.

“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.”, the court added.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.

Cause Title: GOVIND MANDAVI VERSUS STATE OF CHATTISGARH

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1182

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mrs. Pragya Baghel, AOR Mr. Azad Bansala, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Adv. Mr. Prashant Kumar Umrao, AOR