The Chhattisgarh High Court, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, delivered a significant judgment upholding the conviction of four individuals accused in the deadly 2014 Maoist ambush in Bastar. The court emphasized that “conspiracies are not hatched in the open; they are proved through circumstances and conduct.”
Case Background
The case pertains to a brutal attack on March 11, 2014, near Tahakwara on National Highway 30 in Bastar district. A road opening party (ROP) of the 80th Battalion of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), along with local police personnel, was deployed to secure a road construction project. As the first section of the ROP reached the location, an estimated 150-200 armed Maoists ambushed them, using firearms and improvised explosive devices (IEDs). The attack resulted in the deaths of 15 security personnel (11 from CRPF and 4 state police officers), with three others sustaining serious injuries. A civilian passerby was also killed.
The National Investigation Agency (NIA) took over the probe following a directive from the Ministry of Home Affairs on March 21, 2014. The accused—Kawasi Joga @ Pada, Dayaram Baghel @ Ramesh Anna, Maniram Korram @ Boti, and Mahadev Nag—were arrested, charged, and convicted under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Arms Act, the Explosive Substances Act (ESA), and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
Important Legal Issues
The appellants were convicted by the Special Judge (NIA Act/Scheduled Offences), Bastar, Jagdalpur, on February 12, 2024, under the following legal provisions:
IPC Sections 302 (murder), 307 (attempt to murder), 120B (criminal conspiracy)
Arms Act Sections 25(1)(1-B)(A) and 27
Explosive Substances Act Sections 3 and 4
UAPA Sections 16 (terrorist act), 18 (conspiracy), 20 (membership of a terrorist organization), 23 (providing support), and 38(2) (association with a terrorist organization)
The key legal issues considered were:
Whether circumstantial evidence alone was sufficient to prove conspiracy.
The admissibility of extra-judicial confessions in terrorist cases.
The credibility of witness testimonies from surrendered Maoists turned police personnel.
The validity of sanction orders for prosecution under UAPA and ESA.
Key Observations of the Court
Circumstantial Evidence in Conspiracy Cases: The court relied on Supreme Court rulings to assert that direct evidence is rarely available in conspiracy cases. “Conspiracies are proved through the circumstances, conduct, and participation of the accused,” the bench noted.
Witness Credibility: The court rejected the argument that former Maoists turned police personnel were unreliable witnesses. “Their past affiliation does not automatically discredit their testimony, especially when corroborated by other evidence.”
Identification of Accused: Multiple witnesses identified the accused as being part of Maoist meetings, armed gatherings, and the ambush.
Sanction for Prosecution: The court upheld the validity of the sanction orders under the UAPA and ESA, dismissing the defense’s challenge.
Extra-Judicial Confession: The court acknowledged that extra-judicial confessions require corroboration but held that in this case, “there is ample independent evidence to confirm the accused’s role.”
Decision of the Court
The division bench dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of the accused. The court ruled that circumstantial evidence, along with corroborative witness statements and forensic findings, was sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The convicted individuals will continue to serve their sentences unless they seek relief from the Supreme Court.
