Law & Justice

Supreme Court Overturns Life Sentence for Chhattisgarh Man After Finding Trial Violated Mandatory Safeguard

By Utkarsh Anand

The Supreme Court has set aside the life sentence of Munna Mandavi, a tribal man from Chhattisgarh, after finding that the trial court recorded the testimony of key prosecution witnesses without his presence, violating a mandatory procedural safeguard. The bench, comprising Justices Satish Chandra Sharma and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, ordered a fresh trial and directed the trial court to examine all witnesses afresh in Mandavi’s presence. It also ordered his immediate release on bail, subject to conditions imposed by the trial court.

The court emphasized that the prosecution could not escape its responsibility to ensure the accused’s presence during the recording of evidence, especially when he was in custody and the district jail was only about three kilometres from the court. The bench noted that Mandavi was a poor tribal who was not familiar with legal provisions and had difficulty engaging a lawyer.

The case originated from an incident on 29 December 2017 in Sukma district, when Mandavi allegedly assaulted Somaru, whom he suspected of practising black magic and being responsible for the death of his son. Somaru died from his injuries, leading to Mandavi’s prosecution for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and an offence under the Chhattisgarh Tonhi Pratadna Niwaran Adhiniyam, 2005, a law dealing with witchcraft‑related harassment. The trial court convicted Mandavi in November 2021, relying in part on the testimony of two prosecution witnesses who attributed the axe assault to him. The Chhattisgarh High Court upheld the conviction in January 2025, leaving him to serve a life sentence.

Mandavi’s counsel, Nirmal Chopra, argued that the proceedings were vitiated because the evidence of prosecution witnesses had been recorded in his absence, contrary to Section 273 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). That provision requires evidence to be recorded in the presence of the accused or, if personal attendance has been dispensed with, in the presence of his lawyer. Mandavi was in custody, so personal attendance could not have been dispensed with. The bench held that the entire trial stood vitiated and set aside both the trial court’s conviction and the high court judgment.

The state opposed the plea, citing an earlier Supreme Court judgment in Atma Ram v. State of Rajasthan (2019) where a defence lawyer had objected when witnesses were examined in the accused’s absence, whereas no such objection had been raised in Mandavi’s case. The bench was not persuaded that this distinction could save the proceedings and stressed that nothing prevented the prosecution from producing Mandavi before the trial court, especially when witnesses’ statements were being recorded behind his back.

The Supreme Court therefore directed a de‑novo trial, requiring all witnesses to be examined afresh in accordance with the prescribed procedure.