Mere Marriage To Extremist, Presence At Encounter Site With Child Can't Sustain Conviction: Jharkhand High Court Acquits Woman

The Jharkhand High Court has acquitted a woman convicted under various provisions of the IPC, Arms Act and Criminal Law Amendment Act in connection with an encounter involving alleged extremists, holding that mere marriage to an extremist and presence at the place of occurrence with her 1½-year-old child were insufficient to sustain her conviction in the absence of evidence showing any overt act or membership of an extremist organisation.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary allowed the appeal filed by Pramila Devi, setting aside her conviction and sentence passed by the trial court.

According to the prosecution, a police party conducting a search operation in January 2004 received information that 15–20 extremists, including three women, were hiding near a village in Gumla district. When the police reached the spot, the alleged extremists opened fire, leading to an exchange of fire. After the encounter, two women, including the appellant, were apprehended. The appellant was found with her 1½-year-old daughter in her lap and allegedly disclosed that she was the wife of Pratul Bhuiya alias Randhirji, the Sub-Zonal Commander of the People's War group.

The trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 307, 353 and 412/34 of the IPC, various provisions of the Arms Act, and Section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. During the pendency of the appeal, however, the appellant completed her sentence and was released from prison in September 2011.

Examining the evidence, the High Court found that although the appellant was present at the place of occurrence, no specific overt act had been attributed to her.

The Court noted that one prosecution witness sought to improve the prosecution case by claiming that a pistol had been recovered from the appellant's possession. However, this assertion found no support in the contemporaneous record or in the testimony of any other witness, and appeared to be “an afterthought.”

The Bench further observed that none of the witnesses had stated that any firearm or incriminating article had been recovered from the appellant, nor was there any material establishing that she was a member of any extremist organisation. It also noted that no other criminal case had been found against her.

The Court held that the prosecution had essentially proceeded against the appellant because she happened to be the wife of an alleged extremist and was present at the place of occurrence with her young child. It observed:

“This Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has not been able to establish the case against the appellant. This court is of the considered view that mere presence of the appellant at the place of occurrence that too with a child aged 1½ years on the lap and merely because she happens to be the wife of an extremist is not sufficient to sustain the conviction of the appellant.”

The Bench also found that the trial court had erred in concluding that the appellant was an active member of the extremist group despite there being no material whatsoever on record to support such a finding.

Accordingly, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish any overt act, recovery of arms, or membership of any extremist organisation, the High Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant of all charges, notwithstanding the fact that she had already undergone the sentence imposed upon her.

Case Title: Pramila Devi v. State of Jharkhand.

Case Number: Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 597 of 2009.

Appearance: Mr. A.K. Chaturvedi for the Appellant. Mr. Rajesh Kumar for the Respondent.

Click Here To Read/Download Order