Abolish Death Penalty India: Jharkhand - One judge upholds death sentence, other acquits: Split ruling in Jharkhand HC on Maoist ambush that killed 6 cops

Monday, July 21, 2025

Jharkhand - One judge upholds death sentence, other acquits: Split ruling in Jharkhand HC on Maoist ambush that killed 6 cops

21 July 2025, 1:50 PM

4 minutes, 36 seconds Read

Jharkhand High Court delivers a split verdict on the 2013 Maoist attack that killed SP Amarjit Balihar and five policemen. One judge acquits the accused, the other confirms their death sentence.

Ranchi: On July 17, a division bench of the Jharkhand High Court gave a split verdict on the appeals filed by two Maoist convicts, Pravir Murmu alias Pravir Da and Sanatan Baskey alias Tala Da.

They were earlier sentenced to death by the Dumka Sessions Court on September 26, 2018, for their alleged role in a deadly Maoist attack that claimed the lives of Pakur Superintendent of Police (SP) Amarjit Balihar and five other police personnel on July 2, 2013.

The case was heard by Justices Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Sanjay Prasad. While Justice Mukhopadhyay decided to acquit both the convicts, Justice Prasad upheld the death sentence awarded to them. The verdict, spread across 197 pages, has now been referred to the Chief Justice of the High Court for further action due to the split in opinion.

As per legal protocol in such situations, the matter will now be referred to the Chief Justice of the Jharkhand High Court. Special Public Prosecutor Vineet Kumar Vashistha clarified that the conflicting opinions of the two judges necessitate reassignment of the case. He stated:

“The matter will now be placed before the Chief Justice of the Jharkhand High Court, who will reconstitute a bench to rehear the case.”

Vashistha also added that Justice Sanjay Prasad considered the case to fall under the ‘rarest of rare’ category, justifying the imposition of the death penalty under Indian criminal jurisprudence.

The incident in question happened near the Jamni crusher plant under Kathikund police station in Dumka district, where a police convoy led by SP Amarjit Balihar was ambushed by Maoists.

The assailants opened indiscriminate fire, killing SP Balihar along with Rajiv Kumar Sharma, Manoj Hembram, Chandan Kumar Thapa, Ashok Kumar Srivastava, and Santosh Kumar Mandal. Two constables, Lebenius Marandi and Dhanraj Maraiya, survived the attack and later became eyewitnesses in the case.

According to the FIR lodged at Kathikund Police Station, the two surviving constables said they were suddenly fired upon by the Maoists and had no time to react.

Both of them also claimed they heard the attackers calling out the names “Pravir Da” and “Tala Da” during the assault.

The prosecution examined a total of 31 witnesses, including these two key eyewitnesses. Based on the evidence and statements, the Dumka Sessions Judge found the two accused guilty and awarded them the death penalty.

Sanatan Baskey and Pravir Murmu later challenged the decision by filing separate appeals in the High Court—Sanatan on December 14, 2018, and Pravir on December 18, 2018.

Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay, after going through the evidence and testimonies, held that the statements of the two eyewitnesses were not trustworthy.

He noted:

“The witnesses had deposed that they had become unconscious after the shooting and therefore could not have heard the names of the appellants.”

He further observed:

“Though both Marandi and Maraiya were witnesses to the occurrence, they had not seen the convicts participating in the mayhem.”

As a result, he concluded in paragraph 68 of the judgment:

“The order of conviction and the death sentence awarded to the convicts is hereby set aside.”

However, Justice Sanjay Prasad strongly disagreed with this view. He said the eyewitnesses, who were also part of the police team, clearly identified the two accused in court.

He said,

“The eyewitnesses had identified Prabir Da and Tala Da in the court to be present at the place of occurrence,”

Stressing the seriousness of the crime, he added:

“The gruesome death of an IPS officer, along with his police team in discharge of their official duty, were murdered in broad daylight does not evoke any sympathy.”

While upholding the death sentence, Justice Prasad directed the state government to provide compensation and support to the victims’ families.

ALSO READ: Calcutta High Court Replaces Death Sentence with Life Term in Brutal Stabbing Case

He ordered:

“A compensation of Rs 2 crores should be given to the kith and kin of Amarjit Balihar.”

Additionally, he said:

“A job in the rank of DSP/deputy collector should be provided to the son or daughter of the deceased police officer.”

Justice Prasad also directed that

“a compensation of Rs 50 lakh each should also be provided to the family members of the five police constables who died in the incident and a Grade-IV job in the govt on compassionate grounds.”

As the two judges gave contradictory decisions on the appeals, the matter will now be placed before the Chief Justice of the Jharkhand High Court, who will take appropriate steps as per law, likely by forming a larger bench to decide the matter.

The case continues to remain one of the most sensitive and impactful in recent memory in Jharkhand, as it not only involved the brutal murder of high-ranking police officers but also highlighted the ongoing threat of Maoist violence in the region.

CASE TITLE:

State of Jharkhand v/s Sukhlal @ Prabir Murmu @ Pravir Da @ Pravil Da @ Harendra Da @ Sanat Da @ Marang Da @ Amrit and Sanatan Baski @ Tala Da AND Batch Death Ref No 4 of 2018

Source: https://lawchakra.in/high-court/ips-officer-split-on-death-sentence-in-sp/

No comments:

The Death Penalty Scenario in India

India is one of the 193 countries that retains death penalty. There has always been a few imminent judges who have pronounced compelling verdicts upholding the rights of prisoners on death row. There has been increasing debate in various platforms advocating abolition of death penalty or at least to rethink sentencing policies in India. The Indian government has however always been committed to the retention of the death penalty, irrespective of their political ideology. India has voted against a United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) draft resolution on the use of death penalty, saying it goes against the statutory law of the country where an execution is carried out in the "rarest of rare" cases. India retains the death penalty as punishment for a number of crimes including murder, kidnapping, terrorism, desertion, inducement to suicide of a minor or a mentally-retarded person and has more recently in 2013 come to include the offence of rape in certain circumstances. Most recently, there is an outrage over child rape and murder.

After observing an unofficial moratorium of 8 years in India, the Indian Government in November 2012 carried out the execution of Ajmal Kasab, convicted in the Mumbai attacks case, without public knowledge. This was followed by the secret execution of Afzal Guru, convicted in the Parliament attack case of 2001, in February 2013, under similar circumstances, without intimating his immediate family or affording a chance of judicial review. In both cases, the executions were carried out under covert operations conducted by the Government immediately upon rejection of their mercy petitions. Before these executions, the last execution to be carried out in India was that of Dhananjoy Chatterjee in 2004 who was convicted of rape and murder and which sentence was carried out after he had spent 13 years in solitary confinement. Following this, several mercy petitions of death row convicts have come to be rejected. The fear of execution of such convicts is imminent. Bolstered by the Government's unapologetic conduct and public outcry, especially in recent cases of rape and murder reported in the country, the courts are continuing to hand down death sentences at an alarming rate.

In the recent past, there have been a few empirical studies (mainly four) conducted with prisoners on death row. This has highlighted the situation of prisoners on death row.

(1) Most recently the India Exclusion Report 2017-18 found that fair trial rights and guarantees are reduced to a nullity and seeks to breach the citadel of the collective silence. It further said that Convicts on death row in India belong to groups marginalised along the axes of caste, religion, economic vulnerability and educational deprivation, and their fair trial rights, though a part of the Right to Life guaranteed by the Constitution, are invariably non-existent, a survey of 371 out of the 385 persons living under the death sentence and their families has revealed.

(2) Another study was The Death Penalty Research Project (2015) which was conceived with an aim to document the socio-economic profile of prisoners sentenced to death in India and map their experience within the criminal justice system.

There were two other academic studies that were done conducted by Dr. Reena Mary George –

(3)“Voices of prisoners surviving the death row in India” (2014) done through the University of Vienna under the guidance of Prof. Dr. Christoph Reinprecht (Sociology) and Prof. Dr. Manfred Nowak (Law and Ex-United Nations Rapporteur on Torture). George’s research highlights three salient features, namely: poverty, social exclusion and marginalisation are antecedent to death penalty; death penalty is a constructed account by the state machinery; and prisoners on death row situate dignity higher in the juxtaposition of death and dignity.

(4) Another one “Death Penalty – A Human Rights Perspective” (2009) done through the University of Mumbai under the guidance of Retired Justice Hosbet Suresh. This was a study in Maharashtra with the objectives to firstly study the impact of death penalty on the social, mental, and physical being of the inmate and secondly, to study the perception of opinion leaders on death penalty with reference to human rights. All the above reports are public documents.

According to the National Crime Records Bureau, Prison Statistics 2015, there are 101 prisoners sentenced to death. The actual figure of sentences originally awarded is much higher considering the death sentences of 49 convicts came to be commuted to life imprisonment in the said period. As of today, almost in 2019, the figures are unknown through government statistics, however, research centres claim this figure to be around 371 convicts. During the 1980s the Supreme Court sought to restrict the use of the death penalty by characterizing it as a punishment reserved only for the “rarest of the rare” cases. The doctrine has not had the desired effect. According to a former chief justice of the Delhi High Court, Rajindar Sachar: “after the rarest of rare doctrine was introduced in 1980, the Supreme Court confirmed death penalty in 40 per cent of cases in the period 1980-90 while it was 37.7 per cent between 1970 and 1980. For the high courts it rose from 59 per cent in 1970-80 to 65 per cent during 1980-90”. Over the past two decades the death penalty has been extended to include more crimes and been handed down with increasing frequency.

Most recently while commuting a sentence in Supreme Court (2018), Justice Joseph did not seek the reconsideration of the Bachan Singh judgment, but only sought to re-examine the purpose and practice of the death penalty, and whether as a punishment, it serves any goal at all. In other words, the death penalty can continue to remain constitutionally valid because of the Bachan Singh judgment, but its application in substantive cases coming before the court must be restricted to only those cases which meet the criteria laid down in that case.

While updating the blog and conducting my own empirical studies, I observed the heinous nature of the crimes that were committed and thought about the families, about their loss, about the victims who for no fault of their own died. If I lost my relative or a dear friend, would I still oppose death penalty and would I still advocate to abolish the death sentence? Having worked in the criminal justice system and also having the seen the other side, where often it is the marginalized, vulnerable and oppressed who are on death row makes me want to advocate for abolition of this punishment. Victims should definitely get justice for their loss, for their pain. No one should escape the rule of law. As long as humanity exists; crime will exist. Should we not re-consider our sentencing policies?

Reena Mary George

Abolish Death Penalty India

Monday, July 21, 2025

Jharkhand - One judge upholds death sentence, other acquits: Split ruling in Jharkhand HC on Maoist ambush that killed 6 cops

No comments:

Post a Comment

Followers