Kiran Raj

The Chhattisgarh High Court has adjudicated an appeal challenging the conviction of multiple accused persons under provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Arms Act, Explosive Substances Act, and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The case arose from an incident involving an attack on security personnel, leading to multiple fatalities and injuries. The appellants sought reversal of their conviction and sentence, arguing that the prosecution failed to establish their involvement beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court, after considering the submissions and evidence, upheld the convictions, stating that "criminal conspiracy is established by proving an agreement to commit an offence, irrespective of whether the intended act was executed." The judgment reaffirmed that in cases involving serious crimes, "mere proof of an agreement among the accused is sufficient for conviction under Section 120B IPC, and an overt act is not always necessary." The court also addressed evidentiary concerns, ruling that circumstantial evidence and extra-judicial confessions were admissible and could be relied upon.

The case pertains to an attack on a security force unit deployed for a road-opening operation near Tahakwara on National Highway 30. According to the prosecution, on March 11, 2014, approximately 150 to 200 armed Maoist cadres ambushed the security personnel, resulting in the deaths of 15 security officers—11 from the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and 4 from the state police—along with one civilian. Several other security personnel sustained severe injuries. The attackers allegedly looted arms and ammunition before fleeing into the forest.

An FIR was initially lodged against known and unknown Maoist operatives, naming individuals including Sonadhar, Shankar, Sanna, Surendra, Ganesh Uike, and others. The investigation was subsequently transferred to the National Investigation Agency (NIA) by an order issued on March 21, 2014. The NIA re-registered the case as RC No. 1/2014/NIA Delhi on March 28, 2014, and after a detailed investigation, presented a charge sheet against multiple accused persons.

The appellants were charged under Sections 302, 307, and 120B IPC; Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act; Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act; and Sections 16, 18, 20, 23, and 38(2) of the UAPA. The Special Judge (NIA Act) convicted them and sentenced them to life imprisonment and other penalties.

During the trial, the prosecution examined 73 witnesses, including police personnel, forensic experts, and local residents. The evidence included postmortem reports, recovery of arms, witness testimonies, and disclosure statements by the accused.

The defence argued that the appellants were falsely implicated and that no direct evidence linked them to the attack. It was contended that no arms or explosives were recovered from them and that the case relied on circumstantial evidence and testimonies of individuals who had surrendered from the Maoist organization. The defence further challenged the validity of sanction orders required for prosecution under the UAPA and the Explosive Substances Act.

Addressing the nature of conspiracy, the court observed: "Conspiracies are not hatched in open. By their nature, they are secretly planned and can be proved even by circumstantial evidence. The lack of direct evidence relating to conspiracy has no consequence." The court further stated: "The essence of the offence of conspiracy lies not in the commission of the act but in the agreement to commit it. Mere knowledge or discussion of a plan is insufficient; an agreement to act upon it is required."

The court referred to testimony from various witnesses, including police personnel who had previously been associated with Maoist groups and later surrendered. It recorded that "multiple witnesses, including PW-40 and PW-50, identified the appellants as individuals who participated in Maoist meetings and were involved in the attack." The court also took note of extra-judicial confessions made by the appellants before these witnesses, stating that "extra-judicial confessions are admissible and can be relied upon, particularly when corroborated by independent evidence."

Regarding the validity of the prosecution’s case, the court observed that the charge of criminal conspiracy was well-founded, stating: "An agreement to commit an offence constitutes criminal conspiracy. The prosecution is not required to prove that each conspirator committed an overt act, as long as participation in the agreement is established."

On the issue of evidentiary reliance on disclosure statements, the court recorded: "The disclosure statements of the accused, coupled with the recovery of arms and ammunition, establish their involvement in the conspiracy."

The court also addressed the defence's contention that the prosecution relied on the same set of circumstances in different criminal trials, noting that "the prosecution is not precluded from using evidence in multiple cases where the facts are interrelated and form part of a continuing criminal act."

After examining the evidence, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions. It ruled: "The appellants, having been found guilty of engaging in a criminal conspiracy that resulted in multiple fatalities and injuries to security personnel, have been rightly convicted under the IPC, Arms Act, Explosive Substances Act, and UAPA. The sentences imposed are appropriate and require no interference."

The court further directed that "no leniency can be granted in cases involving organized attacks on security personnel, as such acts undermine national security and public order."

The judgment confirmed that the prosecution had complied with legal requirements regarding sanction for prosecution under the UAPA and the Explosive Substances Act. It noted: "The sanctioning authority applied its mind before granting approval, and procedural requirements under the relevant statutes were met."

Case Title: Kawasi Joga @ Pada & Ors. v. Union of India
Case Number: CRA No. 825 of 2024
Bench: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

[Read/Download order]