SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Chh) 171

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ., Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.
 
Kawasi Joga @ Pada S/o Kawasi Koya - Appellants
Versus
Union Of India Through The Director General, National Investigation Agency, C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi . - Respondent
CRA No. 825 of 2024
Decided On : 18-02-2025

Advocate Appeared:
For Appellants :Ms. Fouzia Mirza, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Navin Shukla and Ms. Smita Jha, Advocates.
For Respondent:Mr. B.Gopa Kumar, Mr. Himanshu Pandey and Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Advocates.

The court affirmed that circumstantial evidence can suffice for conviction in cases involving organized crime, particularly when direct evidence is scarce due to the nature of the crime.

Headnote:

(A) National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 - Section 21(1) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 307, 120B - Arms Act, 1959 - Sections 25(1)(1-B)(A), 27 - Explosive Substances Act, 1908 - Sections 3, 4 - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Sections 16, 18, 20, 23, 38(2) - Conviction of appellants for involvement in ambush leading to deaths of security personnel and civilians - Convicted under multiple sections with life imprisonment and fines imposed. (Paras 1-2)

(B) Prosecution's case - Ambush by armed Maoists on security personnel resulting in multiple fatalities - Evidence primarily circumstantial due to nature of incident - Witnesses included former Naxalites who later joined police force. (Paras 3-12)

(C) Defence arguments - Appellants claimed false implication and lack of direct evidence - Emphasized on absence of incriminating material recovered from them. (Paras 8-13)

(D) Findings of Court - Conviction upheld based on circumstantial evidence, witness testimonies, and established conspiracy against the State - Court noted the organized nature of the crime and the challenges in obtaining direct evidence in such cases. (Paras 24-28) (E)

Result: Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentences upheld.

Judgment :

(Ramesh Sinha, CJ.)

1. The appellants have preferred this appeal under 21(1) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (for short, the NIA) questioning the judgment dated 12.02.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (NIA Act/Scheduled Offence) Bastar, Jagdalpur, in Special Sessions Trial No. 4/2016, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:

Conviction Under SectionSentence
302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the IPC)Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/-. In default, 3 months Rigorous imprisonment (for short, the RI) more
307 of the IPCRI for 7 years with fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default, 2 months RI more.
120-B of the IPCLife imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2000/-. In default, 3 months RI more.
25(1)(1-B)(A) of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short, the Arms Act)Imprisonment for 1 year and fine of Rs. 500/-. In default, 15 days imprisonment more.
27 of the Arms ActImprisonment for 3 years with fine of Rs. 700/-. In default 1 month imprisonment.
3 of Explosive Substances Act (for short, the ESA)Life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2000/-. In default, 3 months RI more.
4 of the ESALife imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2000/-. In default, 3 months RI more.
16 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short, the UAPA)Life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2000/-. In default, 3 months RI more.
18 of the UAPAImprisonment for 5 years with fine of Rs. 700/-. In default, 1 month imprisonment more
20 of the UAPAImprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default, 2 months imprisonment more.
23 of the UAPAImprisonment for 5 years with fine of Rs. 700/-. In default, 1 month imprisonment more.
38(2) of the UAPAImprisonment for 5 years with fine of Rs. 700/-. In default, 1 month imprisonment more.

2. The appellants were charged for the offences under Sections 302, 307, 120B of the IPC, Section 25 (1)(1-B) (A), 27 of the Arms Act, Section 3, 4 Explosive Substances Act and Section 16, 18, 20, 23, 38(2) of the UAPA.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 11.03.2014, near Tahakwara on National Highway 30, a road opening party comprising 30 personnel of 'F' Company of 80th Battalion Central Reserve Police Force (for short, the CRPF) and 13 police personnel posted at Tongpal Police Station of District Police was to be deployed to provide security to the workers engaged in road construction. The Road Opening Party (for short, the ROP) left from Police Station, Tongpal in 03 Sections at 09:00 a.m. When first section reached near Village Tahakwara, about 04 Km from Police Station Tongpal towards Darbha, at about 10.30 a.m., armed Maoist cadres of Darbha Division led by Surendra, Deva, Vinod, Sonadhar ambushed the ROP. Firing continued for about one hour. Due to firing and IED explosion 15 security personnel (11 CRPF and 04 State Police personnel) of the Force died and 03 other personnel were seriously injured. A local civilian passing by also got killed. The Maoists looted the arms and belongings of the dead and injured personnel, which included 6 AK-47 rifles, including 3 Under Barrel Grenade Launcher (UBGL) were also installed, one Insas LMG, 8- Insas and 2 SLR and bullets were included, after looting the weapons the Maoists fled in the forests on both sides. On the written complaint of Head Constable Ramcharan Thakur, a crime was registered against Sonadhar, Shankar, Sanna, Surendra, Ganesh Uike, Raghu, Sukhram, Vinod, Sumitra, Deva, Pooja, Jamili, Masa, Naresh, Anil, Hidme, Deve, Lucky, Jogi, Budhram and about 150 to 200 Maoists. Thereafter, as per order number F.No. 11011/17/2014-IS-IV dated 21.03.2014 issued by Home Department of Government of India, the case was handed over to National Investigation Agency, New Delhi for conducting a complete and detailed investigation of the case and submitting the final report. On this, National Investigation Agency, New Delhi re-registered the case as RC No. 1/2014/NIA Delhi on 28.03.2014 and started investigation against the said accused and presented a charge-shee

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top