Does the omission of an accused’s identity in the FIR and reliance on belated identification statements fatally undermine a conviction under Sections 302/34 IPC and the SC/ST Act?

LawSikho
December 9, 2025
Category: Supreme Court of India

Summary

Category	Data
Court	Supreme Court of India
Case Number	Crl.A. No.-005315-005315 – 2025
Diary Number	36721/2025
Judge Name	HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH
Bench	HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH and HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Concurring or Dissenting Judges	None
Precedent Value	Binding authority
Overrules / Affirms	Affirms Ram Kumar Pandey v. State of M.P. Overrules conviction based on belated identification and inconclusive forensic evidence
Type of Law	Criminal law
Questions of Law	Does omission of accused’s identity in FIR vitiate prosecution? Can delayed identity disclosures under Sections 161/164 CrPC and TIP cure an initial omission? Are inconclusive blood-stain recoveries sufficient corroboration?
Ratio Decidendi	The Supreme Court held that omitting the accused’s name from the FIR constitutes a fatal omission that strikes at the root of the prosecution and renders subsequent identification evidence inherently suspect. Belated claims of identification—first in sworn Sections 161/164 CrPC statements and then by TIP—cannot be treated as reliable when the witness had prior enmity and originally omitted the name. Inconclusive forensic recoveries without blood-group matching offer no real corroboration. Applying Section 11 Evidence Act and reaffirming Ram Kumar Pandey, the Court set aside concurrent convictions based solely on such flawed evidence.
Judgments Relied Upon	Ram Kumar Pandey v. State of M.P., AIR 1975 SC 1026
Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court	Section 11, Evidence Act (omissions in prior statements) Section 161 and 164, CrPC (limits on belated disclosures) Test Identification Parade principles Ram Kumar Pandey precedent on fatal omissions in FIR
Facts as Summarised by the Court	On 18 Apr 2021 PW-1 lodged FIR alleging two masked assailants killed his son. PW-2 (wife of deceased) was not an eyewitness to FIR but gave details orally. Four days later PW-2’s Section 161 statement first named appellant, claiming mask fell off. Police arrested accused and recovered blood-stained articles; forensic lab found human blood but no blood-group match. Trial court convicted; High Court affirmed appellant’s conviction and acquitted co-accused.

Practical Impact

Category	Impact
Binding On	All subordinate criminal courts
Persuasive For	High Courts, future benches of the Supreme Court
Overrules	Convictions based solely on delayed identification statements and inconclusive forensic link evidence
Distinguishes	Cases where accused is named in FIR or where identification is contemporaneous and unambiguous
Follows	Ram Kumar Pandey v. State of M.P. (AIR 1975 SC 1026)

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

Reaffirms that omission of the accused’s name in the FIR is a fatal lapse under Section 11 Evidence Act.
Belated disclosures under Sections 161/164 CrPC and TIP cannot remedy a foundational omission in the FIR.
Inconclusive forensic recoveries lacking blood-group matching provide no reliable corroboration.
Prior enmity between witness and accused heightens need for caution in relying on identification evidence.
Practitioners should cite this as binding authority to challenge convictions anchored on delayed or manufactured identification.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

FIR lodged on informant’s oral report did not name any assailant; no mask-slippage or identification allegation appeared in FIR.
PW-2’s on-the-spot narrative to PW-1 omitted the accused’s identity despite describing all other details.
Three days later, PW-2’s Section 161/164 CrPC statements introduced the accused’s name and mask-fall story—motivated by prior family enmity.
TIP, despite alleged prior knowledge of accused, was conducted, raising further doubt.
Forensic lab found human blood on recovered articles but could not match blood group to victim or accused.
Applying Section 11 Evidence Act and Ram Kumar Pandey, Court held omission in FIR fatal and set aside convictions.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioner (Accused-Appellant):

Omission of appellant’s name in FIR strikes at root of prosecution.
Delayed naming and mask-fall story in Sections 161/164 CrPC statements are inherently unreliable.
TIP and dock identification contrived, since PW-2 already knew the accused.
Forensic recoveries inconclusive without blood-group matching; cannot corroborate.

Respondent (State):

Delay in naming due to victim’s shock and rural background is plausible.
PW-2 identified accused in sworn testimony and TIP; testimony is reliable.
Concurrent findings of trial and High Court warrant non-interference.

Factual Background

On 18 April 2021, an FIR was registered based on PW-2’s oral report that two masked assailants killed her husband in a farm hut. PW-2, not an eyewitness to FIR, only days later named the appellant in her Section 161 statement claiming a mask had slipped. Police arrested the accused and recovered blood-stained items; forensic report detected human blood but no blood-group match. Trial court convicted, and High Court affirmed the appellant’s conviction. Supreme Court allowed appeal, holding the initial omission fatal and setting aside the conviction.

Statutory Analysis

Sections 302/34 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act: charged offences.
Section 161 & 164, CrPC: role of prior and belated statements; belated improvements inadmissible.
Section 11, Evidence Act: omissions in prior statements relevant to credibility.
Test Identification Parade: unnecessary if accused already named; raises risk of suggestion.

Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary

None; judgment delivered by a two-judge bench with unanimous reasoning.

Procedural Innovations

None identified; Court applied established evidentiary principles without issuing new procedural guidelines.

Alert Indicators

Precedent Followed – Reaffirms Ram Kumar Pandey v. State of M.P. (AIR 1975 SC 1026).