Jharkhand High Court Delivers Split Verdict On Death Penalty Given To Two Alleged Naxalites For Murder Of 6 Policemen In 2013

Jharkhand High Court's division bench has delivered a split verdict on a referral from the trial court which awarded death sentence to two men alleged to be naxalites, in respect of a 2013 attack on a police team which resulted in the death of Pakur's Superintendent of Police at the time and five other police personnel. 

While Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay acquitted the accused observing that the prosecution had failed to prove its case, Justice Sanjay Prasad upheld the trial court's death sentence.

The bench in its 197 page judgment, delivered the spilt verdict while hearing a death sentence referral as well as appeals moved by the two accused individually challenging the death penalty. 

The incident occurred in 2013 when the convoy of the then SP of Pakur Amarjit Blihar and his team was allegedly intercepted and attacked by the two convicts as well as 25-30 other persons who are alleged to be naxalites. 

TIP farcical exercise, has glaring inadequacies

Justice Mukhopadhyay in his order observed that there was only one prosecution witness (PW 31 driver of the SP's vehicle) who has "stated about the extremists taking the name of the appellants", adding that this had not been corroborated by the other prosecution witness (PW 30 bodyguard of the SP).

It thereafter said, "Mere calling out someone by name and in absence of any concrete evidence such evidence would not be of any substantial value to the prosecution".

The SP's bodyguard had in his statement identified one of the appellants however, he did not identify the other appellant. 

Justice Mukhopadhyay in his order observed that there were "glaring irregularities" in the Test Identification Parade, it seemed to be a "farcical exercise" which could not be considered for convicting the accused. The judge also noted that the prosecution witnesses had adopted "silence" during TIP. Moreover, there were no independent witnesses while holding the TIP.

"The Test Identification Parade, therefore, appears to be totally flawed and speaks of blatant ignorance of the procedure to be followed," the judge added. 

Evidence does not inspire confidence

The judge further observed that both convicts were named in FIR based on the disclosure made by Constable Bablu Murmu who did not assert having seen them "but had heard their names being taken by the other extremists".

The judge further said that the evidence of both the driver and the bodyguard did not inspire confidence as even though both of them were in the same vehicle but had given different versions of the incident. It said,

"P.W.30 who claimed that he had become unconscious during the encounter though the duration of his unconsciousness has not been spelt out by him but at the same time he had heard the extremists taking the name of the appellants though P.W.31 who was lying injured besides him did not disclose about hearing any names...The evidence of P.W.30 and P.W.31 does not inspire confidence as even though they were in the same vehicle but both seem to have given different versions of the encounter." 

Allowing the appeals, the judge overturned the death sentence.  

Public servant murdered in broad daylight

On the other hand, Justice Prasad in his judgment while upholding the trial court order said, 

"...I am of the view that the present case warrants affirmation of death punishment in view of the fact that the public servant i.e. the police officer at the rank of Superintendent of Police and five (5) constables (Sepoys) have been murdered in broad day light by indiscriminate firing while they were performing official duties...If the Capital Punishment is commuted to life imprisonment, then it will demoralize the morals of the police personnels in performing their duties...the morals of the prosecution and general public may also demoralized and it will tore the police officers and police personnels for performing their duties by indangering into their lifes and for safeguarding the common people." 

Brutal assassination, bodies mutilated

The judge said that the trial court had rightly observed that convoy of the SP was attacked with bullets by using lethal prohibited arms to such a needle point precision and with such an exactitude of time that all the "six police personnel got no time to defend themselves and in a jiffy all the six deceased got their martyr in a totally hapless, helpless and defenceless state, though they had no personal enmity, animosity and any sort of feud with the convicts".

The judge observed that the convicts did not stop even after the "brutal assassination" of six police personnel and as per the record, had "mutilated the dead bodies of the deceased Chandan Kumar Thapa and Manoj Hembrom and blew off their skull, scattering their brain materials and at the same time".

The judge noted that although PW 12 (constable) had stated during his evidence that the extremists started firing upon them, however he had "declined to identify the accused persons including the appellant on the point of identification".

The court deprecated PW 12's conduct and said, "Therefore, it can be presumed that the evidence of P.W.-12 on the aspect of identification is deliberately in favour of the accused persons, who has impeached the Senior Police Official i.e. P.W.-19, Chonas Kumar Minj, I. O of this case and P.W.-20, Ashok Kumar, the informant of this case and as such, the conduct of the P.W.-12- Bablu Murmu is highly deprecated, although he is a Government Servant".

The judge thus directed that the Police Department may initiate departmental proceeding against him within specific time period "as he has let down the image of Police Depatment and the sacrifice made by Six Martyers including then S.P. Pakur, late Amarjeet Balihar".

With respect to bodyguard's evidence, Justice Prasad said that it was evident that the, "Naxalites came near the S.P and fired upon him and due to which S. P. Amarjit Balihar became Martyr. However, when he (PW 30) was confronted during his cross-examination by the appellant- Pravir Da @ Pravir Murmu on the point of becoming unconscious, then he denied the suggestion and asserted that he has not become unconscious during para-8 of his cross-examination...Thus, it is evident that even P. W.-30, Lebenius Marandi was under fear by the appellants and others and there is prima facie evidence and hence there may be some lapses while giving evidence on his part, but he has clandestinely identified the appellant."

The court said that while the bodyguard had identified Pravir Da he had not identified the other convict, however the same is of "no consequence" as the second appellant Sanatan Baski @ Tala Da has himself admitted that he also fired upon the SP.

The judge said that the ambush was arranged at such a place where vehicles become automatically slow on account of Culvert –Pulia and this was in a planned manner.

The judge said that it is not expected that there can be any independent witness at such a lonely place.

As the bench delivered a delivered a split verdict, the matter has been referred to the Chief Justice, for assigning the matter to another Bench. 

Case title: State of Jharkhand v/s Sukhlal @ Prabir Murmu @ Pravir Da @ Pravil Da @ Harendra Da @ Sanat Da @ Marang Da @ Amrit and Sanatan Baski @ Tala Da AND Batch

Death Ref No 4 of 2018

Click Here To Read/Download Order