Introduction:

In the case of Kawasi Joga @ Pada & Ors. v. Union of India (CRA No. 825 of 2024), the Chhattisgarh High Court upheld the conviction of four individuals involved in the 2014 Tahakwara Naxal attack, which resulted in the martyrdom of 15 security personnel and the death of one civilian. The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, observed that such Naxal attacks are not merely criminal acts but calculated insurgent activities designed to destabilise the State. The Special NIA Court had convicted the accused under multiple provisions of the IPC, Arms Act, Explosive Substances Act, and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the role of circumstantial evidence in securing convictions in cases involving Naxalite ambushes.

Arguments of the Appellants:

The defence, led by Senior Advocate Ms Fouzia Mirza, argued that there was no direct evidence linking the appellants to the attack and that their conviction was based solely on circumstantial evidence. They contended that the lack of independent eyewitnesses rendered the prosecution’s case unreliable. The defence further claimed that the appellants were falsely implicated due to the absence of concrete forensic or material evidence. It was also argued that the statements of witnesses were obtained under coercion and that the prosecution failed to establish individual roles in the crime.

Arguments of the Respondent (Union of India):

Represented by Mr B. Gopa Kumar, Mr Himanshu Pandey, and Mr Abhishek Gupta, the prosecution asserted that Naxalite crimes are inherently different from ordinary criminal acts and require a broader approach to evidence evaluation. They highlighted the operational challenges faced by law enforcement in collecting direct evidence due to the insurgents’ use of aliases and their control over remote areas. The prosecution emphasised that the accused were identified based on circumstantial evidence, intelligence reports, and testimonies of witnesses who had seen them in the region at the time of the attack. It was also argued that the attack was premeditated and orchestrated by the accused as part of an organised insurgency.

Court’s Judgment:

The Court acknowledged that the incident, which took place on March 11, 2014, near Tahakwara on National Highway 30, involved an ambush by 150-200 Maoists against a road-opening party comprising CRPF and State Police personnel. The attack, executed with firearms and IEDs, resulted in multiple casualties. The Bench noted that in cases involving Naxalite violence, independent eyewitness accounts are scarce due to the remoteness of attack sites and fear of retaliation. The Court held that the circumstantial evidence presented was sufficient to establish the appellants’ guilt. The testimonies of prosecution witnesses, corroborated by forensic findings, intelligence inputs, and recovered weapons, formed a complete chain of evidence proving the accused’s involvement. The Court further emphasised that Naxal attacks are not driven by personal motives but by an ideological agenda to overthrow the democratic system through violence. Rejecting the appellants’ claims of false implication, the Court ruled that the Special NIA Court had rightly convicted them. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellants were ordered to serve the remainder of their sentences.