'Naxal Attacks Are Politically Driven, Threaten National Security': Chhattisgarh HC Upholds Conviction Of Four In 2014 Tahakwara Naxal Ambush

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal termed naxal attacks to be threat to national security and observed –

“Attacks/ambush by Naxalites on security forces are not just criminal acts but are part of a larger insurgency that threatens national security, law and order, and democratic institutions. These assaults are premeditated, highly organized, and politically motivated, making them far more dangerous than ordinary crimes. Unlike common crimes such as theft, robbery, or even homicide, Naxalite attacks are acts of insurgency aimed at destabilizing the State.”

Case Background

On 11.03.2014, near Tahakwara on National Highway 30, a road opening party comprising 30 personnel of 80^th Battalion Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and 13 police personnel posted at Tongpal Police Station of District Police was to be deployed to provide security to the workers engaged in road construction.

When the first section of the road opening party reached near village Tahakwara at about 10.30 AM, armed Maoist cadres of Darbha Division started attacking them. Firing continued for about one hour. Due to firing and IED explosion 15 security personnel (11 CRPF and 4 State Police personnel) of the Force were martyred and 3 other personnel were seriously injured. A local civilian passing by also got killed.

On the basis of a complaint lodged by a Head Constable, a criminal case was registered. Later on, the case was handed over to the National Investigation Agency (NIA) by the Home Department, Government of India. After thorough investigation, the NIA submitted charge-sheet against the present appellants.

The Special Judge (NIA Act/Scheduled Offence) Bastar, Jagdalpur conducted the trial and after considering all the material evidence on record, found the appellants guilty under Sections 302/307/120-B of the IPC, Sections 25(1)(1-B)(A) 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 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and were sentenced to various terms including imprisonment for life.

Being aggrieved by the order of conviction, the appellants brought the matter to the High Court in the present appeal.

Court's Findings

At the outset, the Division Bench noted that undisputedly the police personnel of the State as well as CRPF jawans were ambushed by around 150-200 Maoists in which 15 security personnel and one civilian lost their lives and three of the other security personnel were severely injured. The nature of death of the martyred/deceased persons were confirmed to be homicidal by the post-mortem reports.

The Court took into account the submissions made on behalf of the appellant that there is no direct evidence in the case which can implicate them in the brutal crime and they are being falsely entangled in the criminal prosecution on the basis of inadmissible evidence. However, after examining various prosecution witnesses, the Court was of the view that the presence of the appellants and their role in the ambush were well-established.

Discarding the argument regarding unavailability of direct evidence in the case, the Court said that the crime had taken place in an isolated place and as such, availability of independent eye witness was not possible.

“In a case like the present one, which involves an ambush by the Naxalities/Maoists, generally, the incident takes places in a dense forest or an isolated place away from populated area. Hence, there will always be scarcity of an independent eye witness. Even if any eye witness is present, the situation on the ground remains such that he would not be able to recognize or identify the accused who are involved as in such incidents, a large number of persons are involved and in the commotion, hue and cry that prevails at the scene of crime, the only remedy that lies with the prosecution is to collect the evidence in the form of circumstantial evidence,” it said.

The Bench, speaking through Chief Justice Sinha, further observed that since Naxalites exercise strong control over certain areas, any person cooperating with law enforcement becomes a target, leading to witness intimidation or complete silence.

“Unlike conventional criminals, Naxalites do not operate under identifiable names or keep proper records. Many of them use aliases, making it difficult for authorities to track their real identities. Hence, often the circumstantial evidences play a key role in convicting and sentencing the accused. Absence of direct evidence cannot automatically lead to a conclusion regarding innocence of the accused persons.”

The Court further noted that unlike other crimes, Naxalite offences are far more serious in nature which are planned and executed with the intent to inflict maximum casualties, weaken the morale of the security forces, and assert control over remote and forested regions.

“Ordinary crimes are usually driven by personal motives such as financial gain, revenge, or passion. In contrast, Naxalite attacks are politically and ideologically driven. They are not isolated incidents but part of a broader movement against the State. Unlike criminals who may seek personal benefits, Naxalites aim to overthrow the democratic system through violent means. Generally, Naxalites operate in remote, forested areas where collecting forensic or material evidence is difficult. Many of their attacks involve IED blasts, ambushes, and guerrilla warfare tactics, making it challenging to identify individual perpetrators,” it added.

It further observed that though the case rests on circumstantial evidence, but the chain of links is complete and the prosecution has been successful in proving that the appellants had participated in commission of the offence in question.

Therefore, the Court held that the appellants were part of conspiracy which was against the State and its instrumentality, Thus, the hatching of conspiracy is proved by the circumstantial evidences and also the statement of the witnesses who have identified the appellants/convicts to be part of the offence in question.

“…in light of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mohd. Naushad (supra) and Ram Narayan Popli (supra), and from the above analysis, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has been successful in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned trial Court has not committed any legal or factual error in arriving at the finding with regard to the guilt of the appellants/convicts,” it concluded.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed and the appellants were ordered to serve out the rest of the sentences.

Case Title: Kawasi Joga @ Pada & Ors. v. Union of India

Case No: CRA No. 825 of 2024

Date of Judgment: February 18, 2025

Counsel for the Appellants: Ms. Fouzia Mirza, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Navin Shukla and Ms. Smita Jha, Advocates

Counsel for the Union of India: Mr. B.Gopa Kumar, Mr. Himanshu Pandey and Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Advocates.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 19

Click Here To Read/Download The Order