Split Verdict by Jharkhand HC on Conviction of Maoist Cadres in 2013 Pakur SP Ambush Case - 2026-05-30

The Ambush that Shook Jharkhand: A Court Divided Over Justice

In a rare and significant judicial development, the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi has delivered a split verdict regarding the 2013 Maoist ambush in Pakur that claimed the lives of the district's Superintendent of Police, Amarjit Balihar, and five of his colleagues. The bench, comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Prasad, offered contrasting views on the guilt of the appellants, leaving the fate of the accused hanging in the balance.

A Tragic History: The Ambush

On July 2, 2013, a peaceful return from a high-level meeting with the D.I.G. in Dumka turned into a massacre. As the SP’s convoy reached a newly constructed culvert between Jamni and Amtalla, indiscriminate firing broke out from the dense forest cover. The vehicles were riddled with bullets, trapping the officers in a deadly crossfire. Six lives were lost, and several others were left severely injured in an incident that sent shockwaves through the nation’s security establishment.

A Divided Bench: Two Perspectives on Justice

The proceedings before the High Court highlighted deep discrepancies between the state’s evidence and the procedural integrity required for a conviction.

Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay , in his opinion, favored the acquittal of the appellants. He pointed to what he termed as "glaring inadequacies" in the police investigation—specifically the failure to conduct a valid Test Identification (T.I.) Parade and the absence of independent witnesses. "The prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt," noted Justice Mukhopadhyay, highlighting that identification for the first time in court without T.I. Parade corroboration is "weak in character."

Conversely, Justice Sanjay Prasad , in his dissenting opinion, argued that the conviction should be upheld. Emphasizing the testimony of injured eye-witnesses, Justice Prasad maintained that the severity of the incident and the evidence of surviving police personnel were sufficient to establish guilt. He firmly contended that any procedural gaps should not overshadow the gravity of the crime, asserting that the appellants were "active members" of an illegal organization and that the murder of a public servant demands the highest level of judicial accountability.

The Legal Crossroads

The clash between the two judges centers on the reliability of the prosecution's witnesses and the evidentiary value of recovery claims. While Justice Mukhopadhyay underscored the lack of sealed material exhibits and the questionable nature of the bulletproof jacket recovery, Justice Prasad invoked the doctrine of "confirmation by subsequent events" under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, noting that the recovery of the SP's bulletproof jacket from the appellant’s possession was a damning circumstance.

Key Observations

The depth of the procedural divide is reflected in the bench’s observations. Justice Mukhopadhyay observed: > "The role of the Police in the investigation into the carnage of such magnitude... leaves much to be desired. The learned trial court though having convicted the appellants had also taken note of the inadequacy in the investigation and had made scathing remarks."

Justice Prasad, however, viewed the failure of the police force to protect their own with alarm, directing the State: > "State Government is directed to provide the compensation of Rs. Two Crore to the wife and children of the Martyr Amarjeet Balihar... and to provide appointment on any suitable post to the daughter/son of the deceased."

The Road Ahead: Section 392 CrPC

As a result of the split verdict, the case now enters a new phase. In accordance with Section 392 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the matter will be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for assignment to a third judge. This third judge will hear the case, and the final decision will be based on the majority view.

The case remains a grim reminder of the challenges in securing justice in cases of extreme Naxal violence, where procedural technicalities often collide with the demand for retribution against the perpetrators of heinous crimes against the state.

---

Case Reference: State of Jharkhand vs Sukhlal @ Prabir Murmu, etc. (Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1363 of 2018 and analogous cases).