Naxal Attacks Are Distinct From Ordinary Crimes, They Aim To Overthrow Democracy With Violent Means & Destabilise State: Chhattisgarh HC

In a significant ruling, the Chhattisgarh High Court has held that naxal attacks are politically and ideologically driven acts of insurgency that aim to destabilise the State and are different from ordinary crimes.Explaining the difference between naxal attacks and ordinary crimes, a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, stated,"The attacks by the Naxals are premeditated, highly organised, 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. These operations involve ambushes, guerrilla warfare tactics, and the use of sophisticated weaponry such as IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices) and landmines. Security personnel, including the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), police, and paramilitary forces, are often the primary targets. These attacks are well-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. 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. Local villagers, who often witness Naxalite activities, are reluctant to testify due to fear of violent retaliation. 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,” they added.BackgroundThe Court was dealing with multiple criminal appeals filed under Section 374(2) of CrPC, against an order passed by the Special Judge under NIA Act and First Additional Sessions Judge, North Bastar, Kanker, Chhattisgarh, convicting the appellants under Sections 148, 120B and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”).Initially, an FIR was lodged by Smt. Devli Koratia (“the complainant”), wife of one Dadusingh Karotia (“the deceased”). The complainant reported that the deceased was shot dead by an unlawful assembly comprising the appellants who were alleged to be members of the banned terrorist organisation. In the events that led to the murder, the complainant stated that she, her daughter, and the deceased were at home when two persons came with a 12 year old boy in need of bandaging, upon which they were advised to go to the hospital. Later, when the deceased came out of the kitchen, both the persons took out a sharp-edged weapon and started attacking her husband in furtherance of the common object to kill him. Later, they shot him dead and the deceased fell down outside on the road where roughly 10-12 people were standing, including the appellants (Sundar Pudo, Jailal, Jagdu etc.), who left from there raising slogans like “Lal Salaam Zindabad” and the “RSS goons should die like this”.The police conducted the initial investigation, collected evidence and blood samples from the crime scene and recorded statements from witnesses. Maoist banners and pamphlets were also seized by the police. The case was then received by the Special Court under NIA Act and First Additional Sessions Judge, North Bastar, Kanker (“trial Court”). During the trial, the prosecution examined a total of 35 witnesses and 61 documents. The trial Court, after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by an order dated 16.01.2026 (“impugned order”), convicted the appellants of the charges levelled against them under Section 148, 120B and 302/149 of IPC.Aggrieved by the conviction, the appellants approached the High Court.Stating that the conviction ordered by the trial Court was totally unjustified, the appellants contended that the trial Court had neither appreciated the evidence placed on record nor proved beyond reasonable doubt the offence of the appellants. Further, they argued that the wife of the deceased, who was PW 1 in the trial, had nowhere stated in her deposition that appellants had fired the gunshots which killed her husband and the appellants were merely standing outside the house of the deceased along with other 10-12 persons which cannot be equated with actual commission of the crime. Additionally, it was argued that the conviction was contrary to the rule of prudence as neither the eyewitness evidence was proved nor did any legal evidence...

Naxal Attacks Are Distinct From Ordinary Crimes, They Aim To Overthrow Democracy With Violent Means & Destabilise State: Chhattisgarh HC

Saahas Arora

Tags