Jharkhand High Court delivers split verdict on death sentence given to 2 Maoists in murder of six policemen
Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay was in favour of acquitting the convicts, while Justice Sanjay Prasad upheld the death sentence.
The HC was hearing a criminal appeal filed by Pravir Murmu alias 'Pravir Da' and Santan Baskey alias 'Tala Da'.
The trial in the case was conducted at the Dumka sessions court, which gave a death sentence to the convicts on September 26, 2018. Thereafter, the convicts filed their respective appeals before the HC. The division bench of the HC delivered a 197-page judgement on July 17.
The police team, led by SP Balihar, was attacked by Maoists on July 2, 2013.
The Maoists opened fire on two police vehicles, claiming the lives of six personnel -- Rajiv Kumar Sharma, Manoj Hembram, Chandan Kumar Thapa, Ashok Kumar Srivastava, Santosh Kumar Mandal and Balihar.
Constables Lebenius Marandi and Dhanraj Maraiya, who were part of the team, had survived the carnage. Mr. Marandi and Mr. Maraiya gave statements as eyewitnesses and claimed that they heard the names of Pravir and Tala being called out by the attackers.
The prosecution examined 31 witnesses, including the two eyewitnesses. While delivering his judgment, Justice Mukhopadhyay held that the statements of the eyewitnesses were not reliable. They had deposed that they had become unconscious after the attack and therefore could not have heard the names of the appellants, he noted.
'Though both Mr. Marandi and Mr. Maraiya were witnesses to the occurrence, they had not seen the convicts participating in the mayhem,' he observed.
Justice Mukhopadhyay set aside the order of conviction and the death sentence given in the case.
Justice Prasad took a divergent view and held that the eyewitnesses had identified Pravir and Tala in court to be present at the place of occurrence. He further held that the gruesome murder of an IPS officer along with his team during the discharge of their official duty does not evoke any sympathy.
Affirming the death sentence, Justice Prasad directed the state government to provide a compensation of ₹2 crore to the kin of the deceased SP and give a job in the rank of DSP or deputy collector to his son or daughter.
Also, a compensation of ₹50 lakh each should be provided to the family members of the five policemen who died in the incident, he directed, asking the state government to also give class IV jobs to them on compassionate grounds.
The case is expected to be taken up by the HC's chief justice for further legal procedures.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
13 minutes ago
- Time of India
Destruction of CDRs raises serious doubts over integrity of 11/7 probe: HC
Mumbai local blasts MUMBAI: Bombay high court questioned ATS over the "integrity" and deletion of call data records (CDRs) in its probe into the 11/7 train blasts, adding "reluctance of the prosecution to bring CDRs on record and their destruction raises an adverse inference against the prosecution". HC said the prosecution's case was that conspiracy meetings were held at the residence of a planter in Bandra, attended by four other accused. In May, a prosecution witness met the planter and others near Shams Masjid, in Mira Road, where the witness was instructed by the planter to call another accused there. Besides, confessions of two accused said one handed over his mobile phone to the other near Lucky Hotel, Bandra, at 4.15pm, the judgment said. In its claim of one eyewitness seeing an alleged blast conspiracy meeting, "prosecution could have easily established location and movement of accused at the relevant places and times through CDRs. Instead, the CDR was destroyed. This act raises serious doubts over the integrity of the investigation and amounts to a grave violation of right to a fair trial," the HC special bench of Justices Anil Kilor and Shyam Chandak held. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like American Investor Warren Buffett Recommends: 5 Books For Turning Your Life Around Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo HC said CDR was of critical importance, particularly because first arrest in 11/7 case was made based on a mobile number allegedly belonging to accused Kamal Ansari (who died in 2021 after conviction in Nagpur prison) from which a religious SMS was sent, arousing suspicion in minds of ATS. HC said prosecution appeared to have done no probe to corroborate the witness's claim of having met near the masjid or at accused's house. "Prosecution could have produced the CDR of either the witness or the accused to establish their location," HC held. The witness' statement is shrouded in doubt. Besides, while his statement was said to be recorded by an ACP at Chandan Chowki, the certified logbook shows the ACP "did not even go" there that day. Prosecution said allegedly "as per the Al-Qaeda Manual and training given to the accused, they were not supposed to use their mobile phones for operational purposes". "In the absence of direct evidence of conspiracy, a chain of events has to be completed from which a conclusion of guilt of the accused can be drawn," HC said. The court added that with the eight unreliable eyewitnesses, the chain could not be completed, and the witness was of no help in establishing the conspiracy claim.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Breaking News Live July 23: Leaders of ex-Pak PM Imran Khan's PTI handed 10-year jail term in May 9 riot cases
00:57 (IST) Jul 23 The Supreme Court will hear on Thursday an appeal filed by Maharashtra govt challenging the Bombay high court judgment acquitting all 12 accused, five of whom were sentenced to death by the trial court, in the July 11, 2006 Mumbai train blasts that left 187 dead and 824 injured. Solicitor general Tushar Mehta told a bench led by CJI B R Gavai that the state had filed an appeal against the verdict and said, 'It has serious ramifications. Can it be listed for hearing on Wednesday?' CJI Gavai said he learnt from news reports that 8 accused have already been released from prison. The SG said that was true, but the petition required urgent hearing. Finding additional SG Rajkumar Bhaskar Thakare alongside the SG, the CJI said, 'It was Thakare who had argued the case before the HC. We will list the petition for hearing the day after tomorrow.' The govt in its appeal said the HC misdirected itself into trivialities and misread cogent evidence, leading to failure of justice. It said confessions of the accused persons, admissible under MCOCA, were discarded by HC on technicalities even when they formed a chain of events and outlined the conspiracy to launch the sinister attack on Mumbai suburban trains, which were full of people returning from offices, and cause maximum loss of lives.
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
ED opposes M3M director's plea to quash graft FIR: ‘Don't need sanction to prosecute private person'
The Enforcement Directorate Tuesday opposed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court a plea moved by M3M Director Roop Bansal seeking to quash a corruption case registered against him for allegedly conspiring to bribe a trial court judge. In the case, Bansal is booked under Sections 7, 8, 11 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) along with Section 120-B of the IPC. Bansal's lawyers contended that the proceedings were invalid due to the absence of sanction required under Section 17A of the PCA to prosecute the judge allegedly linked to the bribery. The counsel argued that a person could not be prosecuted solely under Section 120-B for criminal conspiracy unless tried alongside the public servant accused, and that without sanction against the judge, the entire case stood vitiated. Countering this, senior panel counsel Zoheb Hossain, appearing with Lokesh Narang for the ED, contended that the plea of want of sanction was not available to Bansal as he was a private individual, not a public servant. The ED further submitted that even if proceedings against a public servant were barred for lack of sanction, it would not automatically nullify the prosecution of private individuals accused of aiding, abetting, or conspiring to commit offences under the PCA or under Section 120-B of the IPC. After Chief Justice Sheel Nagu had recused from hearing the matter as he had dealt with it on administrative side, Bansal's plea was listed before Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul. Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing virtually for the petitioner, sought an adjournment due to network issues. Considering the request, the bench adjourned the matter to July 30 for final arguments. The corruption FIR quashing plea in Roop Bansal vs State of Haryana has seen unusual twists and turns. It was first listed before Justice Anoop Chitkara in October 2023. After change in roster, the matter was listed before Justice NS Shekhawat who recused from hearing the case in January this year. The matter was then listed before Justice Kaul, before whom it was dismissed as withdrawn. It then went to Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu, who heard the matter and reserved for judgment on May 2, with pronouncement due on May 12, when the Chief Justice, citing 'the interest of the institution' and the need to 'preserve and protect the reputation and dignity' of Justice Sindhu, reassigned it to himself on May 10. This case was assigned to Justice Kaul after Chief Justice Nagu recused himself from hearing it on July 3, citing the need to uphold the principle that justice must not only be done but 'should also appear to have been done.'
