Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Acquittal In 2010 Dantewada Naxal Attack Which Killed 76 Security Personnel, Laments State's 'Flawed Probe'

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal found the investigation conducted by the police as “flawed”. Expressing displeasure over the faulty investigation conducted in the case, the Bench observed–

“It is deeply painful to note that despite the loss of 75 personnel of the CRPF, including 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 of the crime or bring them to justice for such a barbaric act…While the loss of 76 lives is undeniably a matter of profound tragedy and national concern, it is equally well-settled in criminal jurisprudence that an appellate Court cannot sustain a conviction in the absence of clear, cogent, and legally admissible evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.”

Case Background

In the morning of 06.04.2010, there was an encounter of the CRPF party with Naxalites in the forest of village Tadmetla in the Dantewada region. On seeing the force, Naxalites opened heavy fire with the intention of killing them, due to which the police also opened fire for self-defence. Due to such firing, 75 CRPF personnel and 1 member of the police were martyred. The naxals allegedly looted the weapons of the martyred personnel and planted tiffin bombs at various places.

An FIR in respect of the said incident was lodged at Chintagufa police station. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was presented against the ten accused before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Konta, from where the case was committed to the Sessions Court, South Bastar, Dantewada, from where the case was assigned to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, South Bastar, Dantewada for trial.

The accused were charged under Sections 148 (rioting, armed with deadly weapon), 120-B (criminal conspiracy), 396 (dacoity with murder) (76 count) of IPC, Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3, 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. Upon examining 43 prosecution witnesses and 156 exhibited documents, the trial Court did not find enough force in the prosecution case for which all the accused persons were acquitted of all the charges. Against such acquittal, the State preferred an appeal under Section 378 of the CrPC.

'Flawed' investigation by the police

The Court at the outset clearly delineated the limited permissible scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal. After examining the case records and hearing the parties, the Court noted that most of the prosecution witnesses turned hostile and did not testify proving complicity of the accused persons in the horrific incident.

Further, the case was based purely upon circumstantial evidence since there was no eye-witness to the incident. Though the prosecution had sought permission to examine seven injured CRPF personnel under Section 311 CrPC, the same was turned down. Though there was a confessional statement by an accused, the same was not corroborated by any independent evidence.

Furthermore, the seized explosive materials, including pipe bombs, grenades, and rifles were recovered from the place of incident and not from the possession of the accused. Importantly, the forensic report certifying the material as explosive was never produced, rendering the seizure evidence futile.

Acquittal despite martyrdom of 76 defence personnel

The Court lamented that the prosecution failed to obtain sanction required under the Arms Act to prosecute the accused. No Test Identification Parade (TIP) of the accused was conducted, and there were discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Thus, the Court held–

“It is very lamented that the State did not take effective steps to collect cogent and reliable evidence against the accused, despite the tragic loss of 75 CRPF personnel, including one member of the State Police, in a brutal attack allegedly carried out by Naxalites. The investigation appears flawed, as there is no record of the required prosecution sanction under the Arms Act, and no Test Identification Parade (TIP) of the accused was conducted. Furthermore, the FSL report, certifying the seized materials as explosives, has not been produced, rendering the seizure evidence ineffective. Such lapses not only hinder the course of justice but also risk the failure to prosecute the guilty.”

Keeping in view the settled cannons of criminal jurisprudence, the Court found no alternative but to give its imprimatur to the acquittal order of the trial Court with the following words of grief –

“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.”

Training programs for police

Before parting, the Bench asked the Chief Secretary as well as the Director General of Police of the State to impart proper training on the police officers so as to devise them with the proper skills to collect and preserve material evidence effectively and in a timely manner.

“The State must also implement training programs for personnel to enhance investigative competence and periodically report on the steps taken to comply with these directions. Such measures are essential to prevent procedural lapses, secure justice for victims, uphold the presumption of innocence, and maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system. Adherence to these standards is crucial to ensure that those responsible for serious offences are identified, prosecuted, and held accountable in accordance with the law.”

Case Title: State of Chhattisgarh v. Oyami Ganga & Ors.

Case No: ACQA No. 85 of 2014

Date of Judgment: May 05, 2026

Counsel for the State/Appellant: Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate General assisted by Dr. Saurabh Pande, Deputy Advocate General

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, Advocate