Upholding order, HC stresses on distinction in Maoist attacks

Raipur: The Chhattisgarh High Court affirmed the trial court's conviction of five Maoists for the 2019 murder of a man named Dadusingh Koratia, dismissing the appeals of the accused.

The high court's judgment stressed on the distinct nature of Naxalite crimes, the admissibility of circumstantial evidence in establishing guilt in such cases, and the reliability of eyewitness testimony, particularly in challenging environments.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal explicitly recognised that Naxalite attacks are fundamentally different from ordinary crimes. They are "premeditated, highly organised, and politically motivated," constituting acts of insurgency aimed at destabilising the State, the court said.

During the investigation, several items were seized from the crime scene, including four Maoist banners with silver paint on red cloth; computer-printed pamphlets (19, 9, 26, and 27 copies) in black ink on white paper, along with other Naxalite pamphlets; a handwritten Naxalite pamphlet in red ink on white paper stating, ‘Dadusingh is the enemy of the people,' and ‘Dadusingh is an active propagator of RSS,' among other materials. Subsequently, on Jan 16, 2024, the trial court sentenced Sunher Pudo, Jailal Markam, Jagduram Korram, Dalsu Ram Pudo, and Sukal alias Mansingh Yadav to life imprisonment, a decision which the convicts then appealed to the high court. Hearing the appeal, the high court highlighted the use of sophisticated weaponry, guerrilla warfare tactics, and the targeting of security forces, emphasising the severity of these crimes.

‘Absence Of Direct Evidence Doesn't Imply Innocence'

Acknowledging the challenges of collecting forensic and material evidence in remote, Naxal-affected areas, HC emphasised the crucial role of circumstantial evidence.

The court rejected the notion that the absence of direct evidence automatically implies innocence. It affirmed that circumstantial evidence, when compelling and consistent, can establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

‘Testimony Of Deceased's Wife Consistent'

The court mentioned that the accused persons did not operate under their real names, and therefore circumstantial evidence plays a key role. The court placed significant weight on the testimony of Devli Koratia, the deceased's wife and an eyewitness, despite the challenges of witness intimidation in the region. HC noted the consistency of her statements, including the initial FIR and subsequent depositions, and her identification of the accused.

HC meticulously reviewed the trial court's findings, affirming that the prosecution successfully established the homicidal nature of Dadusingh Koratia's death and the appellants' involvement in the murder. The court found no legal or factual errors in the trial court's judgment, concluding that the appellants were part of a conspiracy to murder the deceased.

‘Acted For Furtherance Of Common Object Of The Assembly'

HC agreed with the trial court's findings that the accused were guilty under sections 148, 120B, and 302/149 of the IPC.

HC highlighted the fact that the accused persons were part of an unlawful assembly, and that they acted in furtherance of the common object of that assembly, which was to kill the deceased. The court noted, "Common object of the unlawful assembly can be gathered from the nature of the assembly, arms used by them and the behaviour of the assembly at or before the scene of occurrence. It is an inference to be deduced from the facts and circumstances of each case."