IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ., Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.
Kawasi Joga @ Pada S/o Kawasi Koya - Appellants
Versus
CRA No. 825 of 2024
Decided On :
(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 Section | Sentence |
| 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 IPC | RI for 7 years with fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default, 2 months RI more. |
| 120-B of the IPC | Life 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 Act | Imprisonment 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 ESA | Life 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 UAPA | Imprisonment for 5 years with fine of Rs. 700/-. In default, 1 month imprisonment more |
| 20 of the UAPA | Imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default, 2 months imprisonment more. |
| 23 of the UAPA | Imprisonment for 5 years with fine of Rs. 700/-. In default, 1 month imprisonment more. |
| 38(2) of the UAPA | Imprisonment 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
Adambhai Sulemanbhai Ajmeri & Others v. State of Gujarat
Seeni Nainar Mohammed v. State, Rep. By Deputy Superintendent of Police
Kalinga @ Kushal v. State of Karnataka
Subramanya v. State of Karnataka
Pradeep Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh
Sunil Rai @ Pauya & Others v. Union Territory, Chandigarh,
Dwarkadas Gehanmal v. State of Gujarat
Sonia Bahera v. State of Orissa
Ram Narayan Popli v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Takhaji Hiraji v. Thakore Kubersing Chamansing & Ors.
Leela Ram (Dead) through Duli Chand v. State of Haryana & Anr.
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.
The court upheld the conviction of the appellants for murder and conspiracy, emphasizing the evidentiary value of eyewitness testimony and the applicability of vicarious liability under Section 149 I....
In view of Section 10 of the Evidence Act anything said, done or written by those who enlist their support to the object of conspiracy and those who join later or make their exit before completion of....
The court affirmed that involvement in an unlawful assembly and conspiracy to commit murder can establish liability, requiring only shared intent, not active participation in the crime.
Court must sift evidence at charge-framing under CrPC ss.227/228; inadmissible materials like police disclosures, retracted statements, delayed TIPs cannot form basis for proceeding to trial in terro....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.