Jharkhand High Court delivers split verdict on death sentence given to 2 Maoists in murder of six policemen
Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay was in favour of acquitting the convicts, while Justice Sanjay Prasad upheld the death sentence.
The HC was hearing a criminal appeal filed by Pravir Murmu alias 'Pravir Da' and Santan Baskey alias 'Tala Da'.
The trial in the case was conducted at the Dumka sessions court, which gave a death sentence to the convicts on September 26, 2018. Thereafter, the convicts filed their respective appeals before the HC. The division bench of the HC delivered a 197-page judgement on July 17.
The police team, led by SP Balihar, was attacked by Maoists on July 2, 2013.
The Maoists opened fire on two police vehicles, claiming the lives of six personnel -- Rajiv Kumar Sharma, Manoj Hembram, Chandan Kumar Thapa, Ashok Kumar Srivastava, Santosh Kumar Mandal and Balihar.
Constables Lebenius Marandi and Dhanraj Maraiya, who were part of the team, had survived the carnage. Mr. Marandi and Mr. Maraiya gave statements as eyewitnesses and claimed that they heard the names of Pravir and Tala being called out by the attackers.
The prosecution examined 31 witnesses, including the two eyewitnesses. While delivering his judgment, Justice Mukhopadhyay held that the statements of the eyewitnesses were not reliable. They had deposed that they had become unconscious after the attack and therefore could not have heard the names of the appellants, he noted.
'Though both Mr. Marandi and Mr. Maraiya were witnesses to the occurrence, they had not seen the convicts participating in the mayhem,' he observed.
Justice Mukhopadhyay set aside the order of conviction and the death sentence given in the case.
Justice Prasad took a divergent view and held that the eyewitnesses had identified Pravir and Tala in court to be present at the place of occurrence. He further held that the gruesome murder of an IPS officer along with his team during the discharge of their official duty does not evoke any sympathy.
Affirming the death sentence, Justice Prasad directed the state government to provide a compensation of ₹2 crore to the kin of the deceased SP and give a job in the rank of DSP or deputy collector to his son or daughter.
Also, a compensation of ₹50 lakh each should be provided to the family members of the five policemen who died in the incident, he directed, asking the state government to also give class IV jobs to them on compassionate grounds.
The case is expected to be taken up by the HC's chief justice for further legal procedures.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
31 minutes ago
- News18
Jharkhand HC orders ban on pressure horns, flag rods in vehicles
Agency: PTI Last Updated: Ranchi, Jul 30 (PTI) The Jharkhand High Court has ordered the government to ensure that vehicles fitted with pressure horns, multi-tone horns, flag rods and extra lights do not ply within the state. A division bench, in its order, imposed a complete ban on the use of pressure horns and flag rods. 'Pressure horns and multi-tone horns fitted in vehicles will not be allowed to run in the state of Jharkhand," it said. Similarly, vehicles fitted with extra lights, particularly those that are red and blue in colour and give a semblance of emergency vehicles, should be removed immediately, the bench said. It also ordered the administration to ensure that unauthorised use of flag rods and flags irrespective of their affiliation to political parties and religious denominations be removed forthwith. The court ordered that provisions of the Flag Code have to be duly followed, and the statute of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules and Noise Pollution Regulation and Control Rules be followed in letter and spirit. A division bench of Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad, while hearing a public interest litigation on July 28, had ordered the Director General of Police Anurag Gupta and Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board member secretary to file individual affidavits to confirm compliance with the direction of the court. The affidavits of the DGP and the member secretary will have to be filed before the next date of hearing on August 11. PTI CORR NAM RBT (This story has not been edited by News18 staff and is published from a syndicated news agency feed - PTI) view comments First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Time of India
35 minutes ago
- Time of India
Bail mandatory after 180 days in custody, can't cite holidays to extend filing of final report: Kerala high court
Kochi: If the last date for filing the final report in a case, as prescribed under BNSS, falls on a holiday and the report is filed on the next working day, it cannot be considered as filed within the specified time. Therefore, statutory bail to the accused cannot be denied, the Kerala high court has held. The bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas made the ruling while considering the bail plea of Sanal Satheesh of Cheranallur in Ernakulam, in connection with an NDPS case in which he allegedly transported 25.233kg of ganja in a vehicle. He was arrested on Oct 16, 2024, and the final report in the case was filed on April 15, 2025. In his bail plea, Satheesh contended that if the investigation is not completed within the 180 days prescribed under Section 187(3) of the BNSS, read with Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act, as the case may be, the accused is entitled to be released on bail. He further argued that he had completed 180 days in custody in the case and was therefore entitled to statutory bail. The prosecution opposed the contention and stated that although April 13, 2025, was the last date for filing the final report to continue the remand, it being a Sunday, and the following day a public holiday due to Vishu, the final report was filed only on April 15. It was argued that, by virtue of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, since the deadline fell on a holiday, the period stood extended to the next working day, and hence the final report was filed within time. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Indonesia: New Container Houses (Prices May Surprise You) Container House | Search ads Search Now Undo Therefore, the petitioner could not claim the benefit of statutory bail. HC, however, held that Section 10 of the General Clauses Act had no application in the present case, as the provision applies only when an act is required to be done or a proceeding is to be taken in any court or office within a period prescribed by law. Since Section 187 of the BNSS does not prescribe any time limit for the police to file a final report, but merely empowers the magistrate to authorise custody, the provision was found inapplicable. Consequently, HC granted bail to Satheesh, subject to certain conditions.
Time of India
35 minutes ago
- Time of India
Kerala HC junks plea to quash vigilance case related to Kudumbashree Mission fund misappropriation
Kochi: High court has dismissed the petition seeking to quash the vigilance case related to the alleged misappropriation of Rs 2.16 crore allocated by the State Kudumbashree Mission to the High Range Rural Development Society (HRDS), which had been appointed as the project implementing agency (PIA) for projects aimed at supporting underprivileged youth. Justice A Badharudeen dismissed the plea filed by G Sreeraj of Kottarakkara, who was serving as the state programme manager (finance) of Kudumbashree Mission and is the third accused in the case. The prosecution alleged that all three accused — HRDS secretary Aji Krishnan, HRDS employee Praise Pious and Sreeraj — entered into a criminal conspiracy and abused their official positions, thereby misappropriating Rs 2.16 crore out of the Rs 5.63 crore granted by the State Kudumbashree Mission to HRDS for implementing skill development courses and providing placement assistance to economically disadvantaged youth. As programme manager (finance), Sreeraj was responsible for scrutinising financial statements and audit reports submitted by the PIA in connection with the projects. However, he allegedly failed to report the diversion of funds, despite being aware of it, thereby facilitating the misappropriation. In his defence, Sreeraj argued that he was the last in the hierarchy involved in processing fund release requests and that such applications from the PIA were routed through five other senior officers, including director (finance) and chief operating officer, before reaching him. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Undo Rejecting this defence, HC observed that the FIR contains specific allegations against all three accused and held that an effective investigation is necessary. The court ruled that the petition to quash the FIR cannot be entertained at this stage and directed that the investigation proceed.
