New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India, in a significant judgment delivered on December 8, 2025, overturned the conviction of Govind Mandavi, setting aside the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court of Chhattisgarh. Mandavi had been convicted under Sections 302/34 and 460 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of Bivan Hidko.
The Division Bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, allowed the appeal arising out of two SLPs. The core of the Court’s decision rested on the highly questionable testimony of the key prosecution witness, Smt. Sukmai Hidko (PW-2), the wife of the deceased, and the “fatal omission” of the accused’s name in the initial report.
The incident occurred on the night of April 17, 2021. The initial report, or merg intimation (Exh. P/1), was lodged by the deceased’s father, Heeralal Hidko (PW-1), based on information from Smt. Sukmai Hidko (PW-2). This report stated that two “unknown masked persons” had taken Bivan away and assaulted him. Crucially, the Supreme Court noted that “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.” The accused-appellant, Govind Mandavi, is the brother of Binda Bai (PW-6), the deceased’s second wife, and the Court acknowledged a backdrop of “prior enmity” between the families.
The prosecution attempted to explain the delayed naming of the accused—made only four days later in the Section 161 CrPC statement—by claiming that PW-2 was ill and in shock. However, the Court rejected this, observing:
“It is clear that the witness, Smt. Sukmai Hidko (PW-2), described every other minute aspect… 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.”
Furthermore, the Court found the subsequent conduct of holding a Test Identification Parade (TIP) unnecessary, stating:
“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 Court concluded that the testimonies of the two star prosecution witnesses “are full of embellishments and contradictions” and that the “belated introduction of the accused-appellant’s name in Smt. Sukmai Hidko’s (PW-2) 161 CrPC statement dated 21st April 2021 appears to be a clear manipulation, devised to implicate the accused-appellant in the crime owing to prior enmity.” Citing Ram Kumar Pandey v. State of M.P., the Court held that the omission of the accused’s name in the FIR “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 also found the recovery of blood-stained articles inconsequential because the FSL report was inconclusive regarding the blood group, noting that “mere detection of human blood on the articles does not, by itself, provide any corroboration to the otherwise flimsy evidence of the witnesses.” With the identification evidence eschewed, the Court found “no credible evidence on record to connect the appellant with the crime.”
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and directed the accused-appellant’s release forthwith.
Case Details:
Case Name: Govind Mandavi v. State of Chhattisgarh
Citation: 2025 INSC 1399
Court: Supreme Court of India
Coram: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Date of Judgment: December 08, 2025
Appearance:
For Petitioner(s): Mrs. Pragya Baghel, AOR; Mr. Azad Bansala, Adv.
For Respondent(s): Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Adv.; Mr. Prashant Kumar Umrao, AOR
