Wife of Extremist, Child on Her Lap: Jharkhand HC Acquits Woman Convicted in 2004 Naxal Encounter Case
The Jharkhand High Court has set aside the conviction of Pramila Devi, finding no overt act, no recovery of arms from her person, and no evidence of extremist membership beyond her presence at a naxal encounter site.
Nearly two decades after a counter-insurgency raid in Gumla district's Ninar village, Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary, sitting singly at the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, has acquitted Pramila Devi of charges under Sections 307, 353 and 412/34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 25(1-B), 26 and 27 of the Arms Act, and Section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. The trial court had convicted her on 7 April 2007 and sentenced her on 9 April 2007, with the heaviest sentences running to eight years' rigorous imprisonment on multiple counts. The High Court found that the conviction rested entirely on the appellant's presence at the place of occurrence and her identity as the wife of an alleged extremist — neither of which, it held, could substitute for proof of a specific overt act or membership in an extremist organisation.
The Encounter at Village Ninar, 11 January 2004
The prosecution case arose from Bishunpur Police Station Case No. 03/2004. Sub-Inspector Naval Kishore Prasad, Officer-in-Charge of Bishunpur Police Station, recorded a self-statement on 11 January 2004 at Village Ninar, Police Station Bishunpur, District Gumla.
According to that account, a joint raiding party — comprising police personnel from Bishunpur P.S., two platoons of the CRPF, and members of JAP-6 — set out at 4:00 AM after an extremist attack on the police station two nights earlier. While crossing Jobhipat village, the party apprehended one Rajesh Oraon, who disclosed that a group of 15–20 extremists, including three women, was sheltering in a drain beside the house of one James Kerketta at Village Ninar, armed with weapons in large quantities. The group was said to belong to the gangs of “Randhirji” and Bablu Singh.
When the police party reached behind the Kerketta house at 9:15 AM, firing broke out from the extremist side. The exchange lasted 15 to 20 minutes. When it stopped, two extremists — Bablu Singh @ Niranjanji and Om Prakash Lohra — were found dead. Two women were apprehended. One of them, Pramila Devi, was holding a girl child aged about one and a half years. She disclosed that she was the wife of Pratul Bhuiya @ Randhirji, described as Sub-Zonal Commander of Peoples War, and that the child was her daughter. A large cache of arms, ammunition, grenades, detonators, naxal literature, and cash was recovered from the place of occurrence.
The FIR was registered under Sections 307, 353, 411, 412/34 of the IPC, Sections 25(1-B)(a), 26, 27, and 35 of the Arms Act, and Section 4/5 of the Explosive Substances Act. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against Pramila Devi and her co-accused Rita @ Sunita. Charges were formally framed on 25 July 2004.
What the Trial Court Found and How It Reasoned
The First Additional Sessions Judge, Gumla, in S.T. No. 143/2004, returned guilty findings on 7 April 2007. The trial court examined nine prosecution witnesses, all members of the raiding party except for two villagers (PW-7 Martin Aind and PW-8 Nirmal Aind) who were seizure list witnesses.
The trial court accepted the police witnesses' account that the appellant was present at the place of occurrence when the firing took place. It rejected the defence argument that no sanction under Section 39 of the Arms Act was obtained, holding that the requirement of the District Magistrate's prior sanction applied only to offences under Section 3 of the Arms Act, not to violations of Sections 4, 5, 6 and 7, which were the relevant provisions in a case involving extremist armaments.
On the question of the appellant's specific role, the trial court's reasoning was blunt: even if Pramila Devi had not herself fired on the police, she was present with the group and was an active member of the extremist organisation. Shared presence in furtherance of common intention, the trial court held, made her liable under Section 34 of the IPC for the offences committed by the group.
The sentences imposed — all directed to run concurrently — included one year's rigorous imprisonment under Section 25(1-B) of the Arms Act, six years under Section 26 of the Arms Act, eight years with a fine of Rs. 500 under Section 27(2) of the Arms Act, eight years with a fine of Rs. 500 under Section 307/34 of the IPC, one year under Section 353 of the IPC, eight years with a fine of Rs. 500 under Section 412 of the IPC, and six months under Section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act.
The Appellant's Case Before the High Court
Mr. A.K. Chaturvedi, appearing for the appellant, urged that the conviction was premised entirely on two facts: that she was at the place of occurrence, and that her husband was an alleged extremist. He pointed out that the FIR itself assigned no overt act to her. Even the trial court's own judgment acknowledged that she took no part in the occurrence. There was no material on record indicating prior criminal history or established membership in an extremist group — the sentencing order itself described the present case as her first offence.
On the Arms Act convictions, he submitted that the appellant was found with a child of one and a half years on her lap and that no arms or ammunition were recovered from her person. Recovery from the place of occurrence, he argued, could not translate into individual possession for the purpose of convicting the appellant. He also placed on record that the appellant had remained in custody for approximately five and a half years.
Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, opposed the appeal and maintained that the conviction and sentence required no interference.
How the High Court Analysed the Evidence
Justice Choudhary went through the testimony of each prosecution witness in detail. The key finding concerned the claim by PW-1, Havaldar Sushil Chowdhary, that a pistol was found in the possession of the appellant. In cross-examination, PW-1 conceded that he had made no such statement earlier. The High Court held that this was an attempt to improve the prosecution case and that the recovery of a pistol from the appellant's possession was “an afterthought.” None of the remaining witnesses stated that any arms or ammunition were recovered from her person.
PW-4, ASI Turta Xalxo, admitted he could not say whether anything was recovered from the appellant's possession, and further admitted she was searched by an unidentified village woman, not by a female constable or police officer. PW-5 said she was not searched in his presence. PW-6 spoke only of a bag recovered from her possession. The two independent seizure list witnesses — PW-7 and PW-8, both residents of Village Ninar — admitted in cross-examination that the police had not recovered any article from the appellant when they arrived at the spot, and that their signatures were taken at the police station rather than at the place of occurrence.
On the question of membership in an extremist organisation, the court found a complete absence of material evidence. No prior case was registered against her. The only basis for the trial court's finding that she was an “active member” of the extremist group was her presence at the location and her relationship with Pratul Bhuiya. The defence witness, DW-1 James Kerketta, in whose house she had been living, deposed that she had been working as a labourer and cooking food at his house for about a year before the arrest, and denied any involvement on her part in extremist activities.
The court held that the trial court had failed to consider that no material was placed on record to show the appellant was an active extremist, and that her presence at the place of occurrence — that too while holding a child of one and a half years — was not sufficient to sustain the conviction.
The Legal Basis for Setting Aside the Conviction
The High Court's reasoning turned on the requirement of an overt act for conviction under Section 34 of the IPC. The provision attributes criminal liability to each member of a group acting in furtherance of a common intention, but the court's analysis stressed that common intention must be established from the evidence, not presumed from association or marital relationship.
The court found three independent grounds, each sufficient on its own. First, there was no definite evidence of recovery of any firearm or incriminating article from the appellant's possession. Second, there was no direct or specific evidence of any overt act committed by her during the encounter. Third, there was no sufficient evidence to suggest she was a member of any extremist group or organisation.
Justice Choudhary stated plainly 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 court further noted that although the appellant had served the substantial sentences and had been released from jail custody on 8 September 2011 — after spending time in Birsa Munda Central Jail, Hotwar, Ranchi and thereafter in Divisional Jail, Lohardaga, for a combined actual custody period exceeding seven years — the case warranted a formal acquittal rather than mere dismissal on sentence completion.
Custody Record
After the conclusion of arguments, the State filed a custody report. As per Letter No. 2985 dated 4 April 2026 issued by the Superintendent, Birsa Munda Central Jail, Hotwar, Ranchi, the appellant was in custody from 12 January 2004 to 8 April 2007 (three years, two months and twenty-seven days) during investigation and trial, and from 9 April 2007 to 3 May 2008 (one year, zero months and twenty-five days) after conviction — a total of four years, three months and twenty-two days at that facility. She was then transferred to Divisional Jail, Lohardaga, where she remained from 3 May 2008 to 7 September 2011 (three years, four months and five days). After payment of the fine amounts and completion of sentences, she was released on 8 September 2011.
Outcome
The High Court allowed Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 597 of 2009 by its judgment dated 6 July 2026. The impugned judgment of conviction dated 7 April 2007 and order of sentence dated 9 April 2007 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Gumla in S.T. No. 143/2004 were set aside. Pramila Devi stands acquitted of all charges. Any pending interlocutory applications were dismissed as not pressed. The original records are to be returned to the trial court, and a copy of the judgment is to be communicated to the court concerned by fax or e-mail.