Chhattisgarh High Court: Common Object Of Unlawful Assembly Can Be Gathered From Its Nature, Arms Used & Behaviour Before Or During Occurrence Of Scene
The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a batch of Criminal Appeals preferred by the accused persons against the Judgment of the Special Judge, which convicted them.
The Chhattisgarh High Court observed that the common object of an unlawful assembly can be gathered from its nature, arms used, and the behaviour of the assembly before or during the occurrence of scene.
The Court observed thus in a batch of Criminal Appeals preferred by the accused persons against the Judgment of the Special Judge, which convicted them.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal elucidated, “Common object of the unlawful assembly can be gathered from the nature of the assembly, arms used by them and the behaviour of the assembly at or before the scene of occurrence. It is an inference to be deduced from the facts and circumstances of each case.”
The Bench remarked that ‘Naxalite’ attacks are acts of insurgency aimed at destabilizing the State.
Advocates Rajat Agrawal, Savita Tiwari, M.P.S. Bhatia, and Sanjay Pathak appeared for the Appellants/Accused while Deputy Government Advocate (DGA) Shaleen Singh Baghel appeared for the Respondent/State.
Facts of the Case
As per the prosecution case, Dadusingh Koratia was fatally shot on August 27, 2019, in Badi village, Konde. His wife, Devli Koratia, reported the incident to the police, stating that unknown armed Maoists had killed her husband. The police registered an FIR based on her Complaint and initiated an investigation. The investigation revealed that the accused, suspected Maoists, had conspired to kill Dadusingh and formed an unlawful assembly. The police seized various items from the crime scene, including pamphlets, banners, and weapons.
The accused were arrested and confessed to the crime, stating that they had killed Dadusingh in connivance with other Maoists. The prosecution presented its case, examining 35 witnesses and exhibiting 61 documents during the trial. The Trial Court ultimately convicted and sentenced the accused for offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). Challenging their conviction, the accused were before the High Court.
Reasoning
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, noted, “The attacks by the Naxals are premeditated, highly organized, 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.”
The Court added that such 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.
“Ordinary crimes are usually driven by personal motives such as financial gain, revenge, or passion. In contrast, Naxalite attacks are politically and ideologically driven. They are not isolated incidents but part of a broader movement against the State. Unlike criminals who may seek personal benefits, Naxalites aim to overthrow the democratic system through violent means”, it further noted.
The Court said that often the circumstantial evidences play a key role in convicting and sentencing the accused and absence of direct evidence cannot automatically lead to a conclusion regarding innocence of the accused persons.
“The evidence collected by the prosecution and the statement of the complainant, who is an eyewitness to the incident as also the evidence of other witnesses revealing the circumstances of the spot and the evidence obtained on the circumstance after the murder, the prosecution have succeeded in proving the case beyond reasonable doubt and possibility that the deceased Dadusingh Koratia was murdered by shooting by an unknown Naxalite who came to the house of the deceased with a child and along with two unknown Naxalites, there were 10-12 persons standing at some distance from the spot, which included the accused persons and after the incident of murder, they raised slogans of “Lal Salaam Zindabad, Maoist Zindabad as also stated that RSS goon Dadusingh had to die in this way”, which shows that the appellants/accused had murdered the deceased along with the unknown Naxalites”, it also observed.
The Court said that it has been established that the accused persons were part of conspiracy, which was against the Sarpanch of the village as well as the RSS goon and with the common object, they are hatching the conspiracy, which is proved by the circumstantial evidences and also the statement of the eyewitness.
“… we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has been successful in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned trial Court has not committed any legal or factual error in arriving at the finding with regard to the guilt of the appellants/convicts for the offence punishable under Sections 148, 120B and 302/149 of the IPC”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Appeals and upheld the conviction.
Cause Title- Sunher Pudo v. State of Chhattisgarh (Neutral Citation: 2025:CGHC:14550-DB)
