16 years after Naxals killed 76 security men in Chhattisgarh, High Court upholds acquittal of 10 accused

Bilaspur: The Chhattisgarh High Court has upheld the acquittal of ten accused in the case related to the 2010 Tadmetla Maoist attack, one of the deadliest assaults on security forces that killed 76 personnel, citing lack of direct evidence and procedural lapses in investigation.

In an order passed on May 5 and uploaded on its website on Thursday, the HC dismissed an appeal filed by the state government against the acquittal of all 10 accused by the trial court, but highlighted the gravity of the audacious strike.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal upheld the trial court's verdict acquitting the accused and pointed to serious lapses in investigation and prosecution.

The headnote in the order said that "acquittal of accused in a mass attack on CRPF personnel upheld due to lack of direct evidence, incomplete circumstantial proof, procedural lapses in investigation, and failure to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, despite the gravity of the offence".

The case pertains to the deadly Maoist ambush carried out on April 6, 2010, in the forests of Tadmetla village under Chintagufa police station limits. The site at the time was in Dantewada district but is now part of Sukma district.

A team of the 62nd battalion of Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), along with state police personnel, was on an area domination patrol when heavily armed Maoists opened fire, killing 75 CRPF troopers and one state policeman.

Ten persons were arrested in the case and a chargesheet was filed against them before the Judicial Magistrate First Class court in Konta, and the matter was later committed to the Sessions Court in Dantewada.

They were charged under Indian Penal Code, Arms Act and Explosive Substances Act for offences including criminal conspiracy, rioting and dacoity with murder.

On January 7, 2013, the Additional Sessions Judge, Dantewada, acquitted all 10 accused, holding that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. Two of the 10 acquitted persons have since died.

Challenging the acquittal, the state government filed an appeal in the High Court in 2014.

In the HC, Advocate General Vivek Sharma, assisted by Deputy Advocate General Saurabh Pande, argued that the trial court failed to properly appreciate crucial evidence, including the confessional statement of one accused recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and seizure of explosives from the spot.

The state also contended that the trial court erred in rejecting an application under Section 311 of the CrPC seeking examination of seven injured CRPF personnel who were eyewitnesses to the attack.

However, the High Court held that there was no direct evidence or eyewitness testimony linking the accused to the killings and none of the eyewitnesses had identified them as perpetrators.

"The alleged confessional statement under Section 164 CrPC is not corroborated by any independent evidence," the HC observed.

The court also noted that the explosives and weapons cited by the prosecution were recovered from the scene of crime and not from the possession of the accused. The forensic science laboratory (FSL) report confirming the seized materials as explosives was not produced before the court, it added.

"It is deeply painful to note that despite the loss of 75 CRPF personnel and one member of the state police in a brutal attack allegedly carried out by Naxalites, the prosecuting agencies have not been able to establish the identity of the real perpetrators," the HC bench said.

"We are equally distressed to observe that a case of such a serious magnitude, involving mass casualties and grave consequences to national security, has ultimately been dealt with in a manner where no legally admissible and reliable evidence could be produced against the accused persons. As a result, the learned trial court was constrained to acquit them," it said.

The order of acquittal passed by the trial court cannot be termed perverse, unreasonable, or one that defies logic or judicial propriety, the HC said while dismissing the state government's appeal.

The High Court expressed concern over deficiencies in the investigation and directed the state government to ensure higher standards in future probes involving serious crimes, particularly those concerning mass casualties and threats to national security.

It also directed the state to conduct training programmes to improve investigative competence and ensure strict adherence to legal procedures in future cases.

Such measures were necessary to prevent procedural lapses, secure justice for victims, uphold the presumption of innocence and maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system, the HC said in its order.