Gondia Court Acquits 5 Of Naxal Activities; Says Prosecution Witnesses Gave False Testimony Under Police Pressure

“…the witnesses examined by the prosecution are not trustworthy and are deposing under the compelling situation and pressure of police…All these witnesses have given specific admissions in the cross-examination as to how the prosecution compel them to give statement and to depose in the Court as per statement given by them. None of the witnesses have identified any of the accused before the Court to the role attributed to them not even as a person know to them”, Additional Sessions Judge Adil M Khan held.

The court also stated that the prosecution did not prove the validity of government’s sanction to prosecute the accused.

The accused Maroti Kurwatkar, Pramod Gadgodghate, Sushila Sontake, Sanjay Bawne, and Arun Bhelake were booked under Sections 120-B, 121, 121-A, 468, 465, 471 of the IPC and Sections 20, 17 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. A sixth accused, Kanchan Nanaware, died while in custody at Yerwada Prison, Pune and the case against her was abated.

In 2010, nine persons were booked for allegedly being members of the banned Communist Party of India (Maoist) and waging war. They were acquitted in 2014. In that case, supplementary chargesheets were filed against the present accused leading to the trial.

According to the prosecution, the accused are members of CPI (Maoist) and instigated people belonging to the Dalit and Adivasi community, workers, women to wage war against India with including armed war and explosive weapons. Kurwatkar and Gadgodghate also allegedly killed police, military, and illiterate persons.

The prosecution claimed that the prosecution witnesses were surrendered Naxals. The court noted that the prosecution did not show any documentation for surrender of any of the witnesses to support the claim.

One of the prosecution witnesses was a police head-constable. The prosecution claimed that he surrendered as a Naxal in 2010. However, in his cross examination, he admitted that the police department does not employ anyone with a criminal background. He also admitted that he has never been arrested, discharged, or acquitted in a Naxalite case.

Another prosecution witness, during cross examination, admitted that he gave a false statement on police directions that the accused attended a meeting called by Naxal leader Dipak Teltumde. 

Thus, the court concluded that the witness statements were not trustworthy, and the witnesses testified under the pressure of police. Further, none of the witnesses identified any of the accused.

The court noted that the witnesses gave material admissions that the prosecution compelled them to give false statements.

Three of the accused had already been acquitted by Sessions Court, Chandrapur for the same offence. Thus, the court said they cannot be tried again as it would amount to double jeopardy.

The sanctions to prosecute the accused was obtained from the government in 2014 and 2015. The court held that there was “considerable delay” in obtaining the sanction which the prosecution did not explain.

The court noted that the prosecution did not produce any witness to show that the sanction was given after due scrutiny by the sanctioning authority. The prosecution did not submit the sanction to prosecute one of the accused.

As per Rule 3, of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) (Recommendation and Sanction of Prosecution) Rules 2008, the competent authority has to give its recommendation regarding sanction within seven working days of receipt of evidence gathered by the investigating officer. As per Rule 4, the sanctioning authority has to grant/deny sanction within seven working days of receiving the recommendation.

The court noted that the police did not produce the recommendation and hence it cannot be verified whether it was forwarded within seven working days of receipt of evidence.

Since no witness was examined to show that the sanctioning authority took an independent view apart from the opinion of the recommending authority, the defence had no opportunity to cross examine the witnesses on that point, the court added.

Therefore, the court concluded that the prosecution did not prove that there was a valid sanction to prosecute the accused.

The court also said that the prosecution did not prove that the present accused had any connection with the nine accused who were acquitted in 2014.

Case no. – Sessions Trial No. 29/2013

Case title – State of Maharashtra v. Maroti s/o Ganpat Kurwatkar and Ors.