Jharkhand High Court
Pramila Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 6 July, 2026
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
2026:JHHC:20005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 597 of 2009
Pramila Devi, wife of Pratul Bhuiyan, resident of Village- Sangurar
Kunwarbag, Police Station- Lesliganj, District-Palamau, At present
residing at Village- Ninar, Police Station- Bishrampur, District-
Gumla ... ... Appellant
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
---
CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
—
For the Appellant : Mr. A.K. Chaturvedi, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
---
C.A.V. on 02.04.2026 Pronounced on 06.07.2026
1. This criminal appeal has been filed against the Judgment of
conviction dated 07.04.2007 and order of sentence dated 09.04.2007
passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Gumla in S.T.
No.143/2004 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been held
guilty for committing the offences under Sections 307, 353, 412/34 of
the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and Sections
25(1-B), 26 and 27 of the Arms Act and Section 17 of the Criminal
Law Amendment Act and she has been sentenced to undergo
Rigorous Imprisonment for 01 year under Section 25(1-B) of the
Arms Act; Rigorous Imprisonment for 06 years under Section 26 of
the Arms Act; Rigorous Imprisonment for 08 years with fine of
Rs.500/- under Section 27(2) of the Arms Act; Rigorous
Imprisonment for 08 years with fine of Rs.500/- under Section 307/34
of IPC; Rigorous Imprisonment for 01 year under Section 353 of IPC;
Rigorous Imprisonment for 08 years with fine of Rs.500/- under
Section 412 of IPC and Rigorous Imprisonment for 06 months under
Section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. All the sentences
were directed to run concurrently, except the fines imposed and in
default of payment of fine, to further undergo Simple Imprisonment
for 06 months.
1
2026:JHHC:20005
2. After conclusion of hearing in the case, the learned counsel for
the State has filed a copy of the custody report of the appellant. As per
the Report received vide Letter No.2985 dated 04.04.2026 issued by
the Superintendent, Birsa Munda Central Jail, Hotwar, Ranchi, the
appellant was in jail custody from 12.01.2004 to 08.04.2007 (03 years
02 months 27 days) during investigation and trial and from
09.04.2007 to 03.05.2008 (01 years 00 months 25 days) after
conviction i.e. for a total period of 04 years 03 months 22 days as
actual custody in Birsa Munda Central Jail, Hotwar, Ranchi and on
03.05.2008, she was transferred to the Superintendent, Divisional Jail,
Lohardaga.
3. As per the Report received vide Letter No.432/Jail, Lohardaga
issued by the Superintendent, Divisional Jail, Lohardaga, the appellant
was in jail custody there from 03.05.2008 to 07.09.2011 i.e. for a
period of 03 years 04 months 05 days and after completion of the
sentences imposed upon her and after payment of the fine amounts,
the appellant has already been released from jail on 08.09.2011.
4. Accordingly, the appellant has already served the entire
substantial sentences imposed upon her and after payment of the fine
amounts, she has already been released from jail on 08.09.2011.
5. The prosecution case is based on the basis of the self-statement
of S.I. Naval Kishore Prasad, Officer-in-charge, Bishunpur P.S.
recorded on 11.01.2004 at 11:15 hours at Village- Ninar, P.S.-
Bishunpur, District Gumla alleging that after the attack by extremists
in the night of 08.01.2004, the Informant alongwith Havaldar Sushil
Choudhary of JAP-6, Constable No. 339 Yogendra Sharma,
Constable No. 164 Keval Prasad Yadav, constable No. 352 Satyendra
Narayan, Police 416 Satyadeo Oraon, Police 373 Jagannath Sharma,
A.S.I. Turta Xalxo and Assistant Commander of CRPF and two
platoons of C.R.P.F. proceeded to Villages Daduapahi, Tewarpani,
Jobhipat, Ninar, etc. for conducting raid and search operation at 04:00
AM. After reaching Bage Sakhua turning on 11.01.2004 at about
05:30 AM, the Informant sent the vehicles back to the Gurdari Mines
2
2026:JHHC:20005
picket. After checking the villages Tutuwapati, Tewarpani and
Jobhipat, when the Informant alongwith the police party was crossing
Jobhipat, one young person started running away on seeing the police,
but after chase, he was apprehended by the police and he disclosed his
name as Rajesh Oraon. On enquiry, he further disclosed that a group
of extremists consisting of about 15-20 persons including three
women is staying in a drain situated on the southern side of the house
of James Kerketta at village Ninar and they have arms and
ammunition in their possession in huge quantity. They are the gangs
of Randhirji and Bablu Singh. He further disclosed that on the
instruction of Randhirji, he was keeping watch on the passersby and
the police. Thereafter, when the police party reached behind the house
of James Kerketta at 09:15 AM, an extremist wearing a green uniform
and carrying a gun noticed the police force and started firing at them.
The rest extremists took their positions and also started firing.
Thereafter, the Informant also directed the members of police force
for counter firing in defence. The firing continued for 15 to 20
minutes. When the firing stopped from the side of the extremists, the
police force apprehended two lady extremists and the rest extremists
succeeded to flee away taking advantage of the forest area. On search
of the area, two dead bodies of the extremists were found. One police
rifle with one cartridge in the chamber and the magazine filled with
cartridges of 0.303 were recovered lying near one dead extremist and
one DBBL gun lying by the side of the other dead extremists was
recovered. Out of the two apprehended ladies, one lady had a baby
girl, aged about 1 ½ years in her lap. The apprehended lady extremist
disclosed the names of the dead extremists as Bablu Singh @
Niranjanji and Om Prakash Lohra. On interrogation, the lady
extremists disclosed their names as Pramila (appellant) and Rita @
Sunita. The appellant also disclosed that she is the wife of Pratul
Bhuiya @ Randhirji, the Sub-Zonal Commander of Peoples War and
the baby girl is her daughter from him. The appellant further disclosed
that she had proceeded from Ranchi 4-5 days ago and had reached to
3
2026:JHHC:20005
the group last night and all members had taken shelter at the house of
James Kerketta and they had a program to move towards Dumri Area
after taking breakfast and Rita @ Sunita and Shanti were also with
them. She further disclosed that (1) Randhirji (2) Lalit Oraon (3) Raju
(4) Sunil Lohra (5) Birbal (6) Seti Oraon (7) Bablu @ Niranjanji (8)
Om Prakash Lohra (9) Ritesh (10) Hemant Oraon (11) Shankar
Poraiya (12) Chhathu Poraiya (13) Ramu Oraon (14) Bishwanath (15)
Suraj Deo (16) Ajay (17) Rajesh Kherwar (18) Rajesh Oraon were in
the group who fled away after the encounter. In the meantime,
villagers also reached there and on search in presence of the villagers,
one police rifle S.L. No.52AY-16314 and two 0.303 live cartridges
and two empty pellets of rifle were recovered beside the dead body of
Bablu Singh and one DBBL gun marked with Peoples War was
recovered from the possession of the deceased Om Prakash Lohra.
One sky blue colour bag was found in the drain. One black colour
vindolia was recovered from the possession of deceased Bablu Singh
in which total 45 rounds 0.303 live cartridges, 03 country made
grenades, ignition sets of two grenades, one detonator, one small
transistor of Philips company, one small camera, Rs.7,655/- cash, one
walkie talkie wireless of Motorola company bearing no. 672/KBC x
534, 11 exercise books in which information about the Peoples War
Group, two diaries in which information about the group were written,
5 Naxal literature, 90 tablets, one pair hunter, one W-spring of rifle
magazine, 10 papers in which LAL SALAAM to Martyr of Lango
were written in the first line and common papers of Peoples War
Group and MCCI were present in the bag. One country made katta
and six live cartridges of 0.315 bore were also seized in presence of
villagers Martin Aind and Nirmal Aind. The Informant further stated
that two rounds firing were made by JAP-6 constable with his SLR,
15 rounds firing were made by the Informant himself with his official
pistol and C.R.P.F. personnel had fired two rounds with 9 mm pistol,
8 rounds with insas 5.56 rifles and 5 rounds with SLR 7.62. In the
result, two extremists were killed, some got injured and some
4
2026:JHHC:20005
successfully fled away. 32-35 rounds firing were made by the
extremists on the police force, but luckily no police personnel got
injured. After encounter, the empty cartridges of the bullets fired by
police personnel were searched, but those had lost in the bush. The
appellant further disclosed that this group and the group of Manoj
Yadav and MCCI Group had made attack at Bishunpur P.S. from the
back side in the night two days ago and when counter firing were
made by the police, they all fled away from there. The group of Manoj
Yadav and MCCI ran away in different directions and reached to
Village Ninar where encounter took place with the police personnel.
She also disclosed that this group had also made firing at the police
camp at Dumarpat in which in addition to the group of Randhirji and
Bablu, the group of Sumanji and Sureshji were present. This group
had committed loot pat at Latehar Station 8-9 months ago. Last year
in 2002, on occasion of the Establishment Day, this group alongwith
other groups had set fire in the machines and vehicles in the offices of
Forest Department of Banari and Gurdari Mines, after dividing in two
parts in which she had also taken part. The Informant claimed that
apprehended extremists and the extremists who ran away in
furtherance of common intention made the firings on police personnel
to kill them. When counter firings were made by the police personnel
in their self-defense, Bablu Singh @ Niranjan and Om Prakash Lohra
were killed and their associates Rajesh Oraon Pramila (appellant) and
Rita @ Sunita were apprehended and the rest succeeded to flee away
and weapons, bombs, explosive substances and other articles in huge
quantity were seized from the possession of the extremists.
6. On the basis of written report, the case was registered
Bishunpur P.S. Case No.03/2004 under Sections 307, 353, 411,
412/34 of IPC, Sections 25(1-B)a, 26, 27, 35 of the Arms Act and
Section 4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act against the appellant and
other named accused persons. After completion of investigation,
charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant and Rita @ Sunita
5
2026:JHHC:20005
and the cognizance of the offence was taken in the case on
28.04.2004.
7. On 25.07.2004, charges under Sections 411, 412, 307/34, 353
of the IPC, Sections 25(1-b), 26(A), 27 of the Arms Act and Section
17 of the C.L.A. Act were framed against the appellant which were
read over and explained to her in Hindi to which she pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried.
8. On appraisal of the evidences on record, the learned trial court
recorded its findings at Paragraph Nos. 21 to 24 which are as under:
“21. PW-1 Havildar Sushil Chowdhary who was the member of
the raiding party has supported the prosecution case and has
deposed that they were on patrolling duty and one Rajesh
Oraon was caught in suspicious condition who disclosed that
extremists were hidden in a drain at Ninar Pat village. When
the police party surrounded the village, firings started from the
side of the extremists and on counter firing, two extremists
Bablu Singh and Om Prakash Lohra were died on spot and two
lady extremists Pramila Devi and Sunita were arrested.
Pramila had a child in her lap. On search of P.O., huge amount
of weapons and explosives substances were seized. Some naxal
literatures etc. were also seized. Names of associates were
disclosed by the arrested lady extremist Pramila Devi. The
evidence of the witness is intact and has not been affected any
way in cross-examination. PW’s-2 and 3 are also the members
of the raiding party and they have supported the above facts
and their evidences have not been affected in cross-examination
by any contradiction and omission etc. PW-4 Turta Xalxo A.S.I.
Bishunpur P.S. has further supported the above facts and has
deposed that in the leadership of OC, P.S. Naval Kishore
Prasad, two platoons C.R.P.F., members of JAP were on
raiding compaigned against the extremists and on the basis of
the information given by Rajesh Oraon, when village Ninar was
raided, firings opened by the extremists on the police party and
on retaliation, two extremists Bablu Singh and Om Prakash
Lohra were killed on spot and two lady extremists were
apprehended. Those were Pramila Devi and Sunita Kumari. On
search in addition to two dead bodies, huge amount of arms,
pistols, grenades, transistors, detonators, extremists literature,
diary, etc. were seized. Further the evidences disclosed by the
witness in examination-in-chief have not been affected during
6
2026:JHHC:20005cross-examination. PW-5 Constable No.373 Jagannath
Sharma, PW-6 Havildar Keval Prasad Yadav, all the members
of the raiding party have fully supported the prosecution case.
The depositions of the police personnels find full support from
the seizure lists marked Ext.-3 and further corroborated by the
self-statement of the informant marked Ext.-2. PW-7 Martin
Aind is the villager of Ninar. He has further supported the
prosecution case and has deposed that between quarter past
nine and half past nine, he heard the sound of bomb blasting
and thereafter when the blasting stops, they went to the house
of James Kerketta. He saw two dead bodies behind the house of
James Kerketta, those were of Bablu Singh and Om Prakash
Lohra. Revolver and gun were fallen beside the dead bodies.
Pramila and Sunita were caught there. The witness identifies
Pramila Devi in the Court. The witness has further deposed that
seizure list was prepared by the police personnel in presence of
him and he has made his signature upon the seizure list marked
Ext.-1. His friend Nirmal Aind also made his signature upon the
seizure list marked Ext.-1/1. The witness has confirmed that
Bablu Singh and Om Prakash Lohra had died and they carried
the dead bodies from Ninar to Jobhipat. The deposition of this
independent witness has further not been affected during cross-
examination. The witness has clearly deposed that both Pramila
Devi and Sunita are outsiders. They did not belong to their
village and they had come there in the night and several
persons had come alongwith them. They had reached there and
they all had stayed in the house of James Kerketta. PW-8
Nirmal Aind is also an independent witness and R/o village
Ninar. He has further confirmed the prosecution case and has
deposed that the sound lasted from 10 to 15 minutes and after
that when they reached at the house of James Kerketta, they
saw the dead bodies of Bablu Singh and one unknown person.
Sunita and Pramila were arrested by the police and the seizure
list was prepared by the police upon that he has made his
signature. The deposition of the witness is intact in absence of
any attention towards any contradiction or omission etc. from
the previous statement of the witness. On Court question, the
witness has further deposed that Pramila and Sunita did not
belong to their village. He does not know from where they
reached there. PW-9 Naval Kishore Prasad has proved his self-
statement which was written on P.O. and the seizure list which7
2026:JHHC:20005was also prepared on P.O. in presence of two independent
witnesses.
22. DW-1 James Kerketta is that person in whose house the
accused persons had taken shelter and two independent witness
PW-7 Martin Aind and PW-8 Nirmal Aind who are the co-
villager and R/o Ninar pat have confirmed that the accused
persons had stayed at the house of James Kerketta (DW-1).
Rest of the witnesses who are the members of the raiding party
have further confirmed that the P.O. was behind the house of
James Kerketta. DW-1 has proved at least that Pramila Devi
was present at his house, rest of the facts are untrustworthy
being contrary to the deposition of the prosecution witnesses
including co-villagers. Hence, it is proved beyond the
reasonable doubt that on the information or Rajesh Oraon,
when village Ninarpat was raided by the police force, fires
opened by the extremists on the raiding party and in counter
firing, extremists Bablu Singh and Om Prakash Lohra were
killed and according to the witnesses and independent
witnesses, they have died on P.O. It is further proved that huge
amount of arms and ammunitions and other contrabands were
seized by the police party from the P.O. in presence of
independent witnesses. The seizure list was also prepared on
P.O. which was signed by the villagers Martin Aind and Nirmal
Aind and the members of the raiding party S.I. Turta Xalxo
(Ext.-3). It is also proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused
Pramila Devi D/o Ram Prit Singh and W/o Pratul Bhuiya @
Randhirji was apprehended with her daughter and with Sunita
Devi on P.O. which is behind the house of James Kerketta, a
drain like place and have been clearly mentioned in the seizure
list.
23. It is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the
defence that the prosecution has not proved the Sanction Order
of the D.C. and in fact, sanction order has not been obtained by
the prosecution from the D.C. and hence, in violation of Section
39 of the Arms Act 1959, the witness cannot be held guilty
under Arms Act, 1959. Perusal of the Section 39 of the Arms
Act, 1959 makes it clear that no prosecution shall be instituted
against any person in respect of any offence under Section 3
without the previous sanction of the District Magistrate (D.C.).
According to Section 3 of the Arms Act, no person shall
acquire, have in his possession or carry any fire arms or
ammunitions, unless he holds in this behalf a licence issued in8
2026:JHHC:20005accordance with the provisions of this act and the rules made
thereunder. But according to the Ext.-3 the seizure list, country-
made pistols, one DBBL gun, one police rifle marked 4 S.L. No.
52AY-16314, magazine No. Y 37427, Vindolia filled with 45
rounds of 0.303 cartridges, 3 grenades, detonators and other
dangerous weapons were seized by the raiding party on P.O.
Hence in this case, the offence is not in respect of offence
committed under Section 3 only, but violation of other Sections
of the Arms Act i.e. Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, etc. have been made by
the extremists group to which accused Pramila Devi belonged.
Hence under such circumstances previous sanction of D.C. is
not essential.
24. It is further argued by the learned defence counsel that
witnesses have proved that when the accused Pramila Devi was
apprehended, she had a girl child of 1-1/2 years age in her lap
and it cannot be even thought that under such condition, she
might have able to make any fire against the raiding party.
Hence, she cannot be held guilty under Sections 307 and 353 of
the I.P.C. The witnesses have proved that when firing were
opened by the extremists, accused Pramila Devi was present
with the group. The evidences have further proved that she is
an active member of the extremist group, hence even if she did
not make any fire against the police personnel, she is still guilty
for committing offences under Sections 307 and 353 of the
I.P.C.”
9. The learned trial court held the appellant guilty for committing
the offences under Sections 307, 353, 412/34 of IPC and Sections
25(1-b), 26 and 27 of the Arms Act and Section 17 of the Criminal
Law Amendment Act.
10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted
that the appellant has been convicted only because she happened to be
present at the place of occurrence and her husband is alleged to be an
extremist.
11. The learned counsel further submitted that even as per the First
Information Report, there is no overt act assigned to the appellant,
rather she was found with a child of 1½ months in her lap. He also
submitted that even as per the learned trial court’s judgment, the
appellant did not take any part in the alleged occurrence, but she has
9
2026:JHHC:20005
been convicted on the ground that she is a member of extremist group.
He also submitted that as per the order of sentence, the present case is
said to be the first offence of the appellant and there is no material that
she was a member of extremist group as no other case was registered
against her.
12. The learned counsel further submitted that merely because the
lady happened to be the wife of one extremist, the same by itself
cannot be a ground to sustain her conviction with the aid of Section 34
of Indian Penal Code inasmuch as there is no overt act on the part of
the appellant.
13. He further submitted that as per the case of the prosecution, the
co-accused persons fled away from the place of occurrence and arms
and ammunition were recovered from the place of occurrence. He
submitted that merely because the appellant was present at the place
of occurrence, conviction of the appellant under the Arms Act is also
not sustainable.
14. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that as per
instructions, the appellant has remained in custody for 5½ years.
15. Learned counsel for the State opposed the submissions made
on behalf of the appellant and submitted that the impugned judgment
of conviction and sentence does not require any interference.
Findings of this court.
16. In course of trial, the prosecution examined altogether 09
witnesses to prove the charges against the appellant.
PW-1 Havaldar Sushil Member of Raiding Party
Chowdhary
PW-2 Jogendra Sharma Member of Raiding Party
PW-3 Satyendra Narayan Member of Raiding Party
PW-4 Turta Xalxo Member of Raiding Party
PW-5 Jagannath Sharma Member of Raiding Party
PW-6 Keval Prasad Yadav Member of Raiding Party
PW-7 Martin Aind Seizure List Witness
10
2026:JHHC:20005
PW-8 Nirmal Aind Seizure List Witness
PW-9 Naval Kishore Prasad Informant & Member of
Raiding Party
17. The prosecution exhibited the following documents:
Exhibit-1 & 1/1 Signatures of PW-7 & PW-8 on seizure list
Exhibit-2 Self-statement of Informant
Exhibit-3 Signature of Informant on seizure list
18. PW-1 (Havildar Sushil Chowdhary) was member of the raiding
party. In his examination-in-chief, he deposed that the occurrence
took place on 11.01.2004 and at that time, he was posted at Bishunpur
police station on the post of Havaldar. He alongwith Jogendra
Sharma, Satyendra Narayan, Jannath Sharma, Satyadeo Oraon and
others went to patrolling duty and conducted raid on the direction of
the Officer-in-charge, Bishunpur P.S. and C.R.P.F. was also with
them. When they reached a hilly area at Ninarpat, they saw one man
running away, but after chase, the police party caught him. He
disclosed his name as Rajesh Oraon. On interrogation, he further
disclosed the names of other extremists who were hidden. When the
police party proceeded further and reached Ninar village, the
extremists hiding in the village suddenly opened fire and the police
force made counter firing in their self-defence. After some time, when
the firing stopped, they saw two women running away, but they were
apprehended. In course of search, two dead bodies were found. The
ladies disclosed their names as Pramila and Sunita and they told the
names of dead persons as Bablu and Om Prakash Lohra. On search,
one pistol and a child was found in possession of Pramila Devi. On
search, weapons and bombs were recovered from the place of
occurrence and some naxal literatures were also recovered. He
identified the appellant in the court with her girl in her lap. During
cross-examination, he admitted Para-19 that his statement was
recorded by the police, but he had not stated regarding the seizure of
11
2026:JHHC:20005
pistol from the possession of the appellant. He further admitted that
the officer-in-charge had searched the appellant in his presence.
19. PW-2 (Jogendra Sharma, JAP-6) was also a member of the
raiding party. In his examination-in-chief, he deposed that the
occurrence had taken place on 11.01.2004. He had proceeded with
Havaldar Sushil Choudhary, Constable Jagannath Sharma, Satyendra
Narayan, Satyadeo Oraon and Constable Keval Prasad Yadav for
conducting raid against the extremists. In course of raid, Rajesh Oraon
was arrested and on the basis of his disclosure, village Ninar was
surrounded by force where firings were made by the extremists and
counter firings were made by the police party in self-defence. When
firing stopped, two dead bodies, arms and ammunitions were found
and two lady extremists namely, Pramila and Sunita were found
alongwith one child in course of search of place of occurrence. They
disclosed the names of the dead extremists as Bablu and Om Prakash
Lohra and other extremists fled away. He further deposed that one
rifle (looted from the police), one double-barrel gun, hand-grenade,
detonator, wire, naxal literature, etc. were recovered. The appellant
disclosed herself as the wife of the Zonal Commander of War Group
namely, Pratul Bhuiya and the child as his daughter. He identified the
appellant in court. During cross-examination; he admitted that he
does not know as to who had apprehended the appellant.
20. PW-3 (Satyendra Narayan, JAP-6) was also a member of the
raiding party. In his examination-in-chief, he deposed that the
occurrence is of January, 2004 and at that time, he was posted at
Bishunpur Police Station on the post of Constable. He alongwith
Sushil, Jogendra Sharma, Keval Prasad Yadav and Satyadeo had
proceeded for conducting raid against the extremists. When they
reached Jobhipat, they saw Rajesh Oraon and after chase, they caught
him. Rajesh Oraon disclosed that the extremists are in the next village.
When they further proceeded for surrounding the village, firing started
and the police also made firing in self-defence. When the firing
stopped, the appellant alongwith one child and Sunita were
12
2026:JHHC:20005
apprehended in course of search of the place of occurrence. They
disclosed the names of the dead persons as Bablu and Om Prakash
Lohra. One looted police rifle, one double barrel gun, detonator, wire,
hand grenade, cartridges, pamphlets and naxal literature, money,
mobile etc. were recovered. He identified the appellant in court who
was alongwith the child, aged about 02 years. During cross-
examination, he admitted that whatever he deposed about the
extremists, he said the same as per the disclosure made by the
appellant. He also admitted that he had not apprehended the appellant.
21. PW-4 (Turta Xalxo, A.S.I. Bishunpur P.S.) was also a member
of the raiding party. In his examination-in-chief, he deposed that he
had proceeded with the raiding party and when they reached near
Jobhipat Village, they saw Rajesh Oraon fleeing away, but after
chase, CRPF apprehended him and he disclosed that the extremists are
hiding in Ninar Village near the house of James. When they started
surrounding the Ninar Village, the extremists started firing and they
also made counter firing. When the firing stopped, the police party
searched the place of occurrence and in course of search, the appellant
with a child and one girl, namely, Sunita was apprehended. He
identified the appellant in court. Thereafter, two dead bodies and one
police rifle, one DB Gun, pellet of DB Gun, pellet of .303, Vindolia
pistol, 3 grenades, one camera, one small radio, detonator, naxal
literature, diary, shoes, clothes, etc. were recovered and seized.
Thereafter, they returned to the police station alongwith the dead
bodies and the seized articles. The two lady extremists disclosed the
names of the dead persons as Om Prakash Lohra and Bablu Singh.
During cross-examination, he admitted at Para-12 that he cannot say
as to whether anything was recovered from the possession of the
appellant. He also admitted at Para-14 that the appellant was searched
by one village lady, but he does not know as to who was that lady.
22. PW-5 (Jagannath Sharma, JAP-6) was also a member of the
raiding party. In his examination-in-chief, he deposed that the
occurrence had taken place on 11.01.2004 and on that day, he had
13
2026:JHHC:20005
gone with the raiding party to Ninarpat and they had apprehended
Rajesh Oraon while fleeing away. When they went behind the house
of James Kerketta, firing had started and the police had also made
counter firing. When firing stopped and the search was made, two
dead bodies were recovered and two lady extremists were
apprehended. The lady extremist disclosed the names of the dead
persons as Bablu Singh and Om Prakash Lohra. Thereafter, looted
rifle of the police, DBL Gun, grenade, pistol and naxal literature were
recovered and seizure list was prepared. He identified the appellant in
court. During cross-examination, he admitted that the appellant was
apprehended by the Officer-in-charge, but she was not searched in his
presence.
23. PW-6 (Keval Prasad Yadav) was also a member of the raiding
party. In his examination-in-chief, he deposed that the occurrence is of
11.01.2004 and they had gone to Jobhipat. He further stated that the
Officer-in-charge had caught the appellant and Rita. He identified the
appellant in court. He further stated that two dead bodies were
recovered, one was Bablu Singh and the other was Om Prakash Lohra.
Thereafter, one government rifle, one DBBL gun and grenade were
recovered. The constable had told him that one country-made pistol
was recovered from the possession of the appellant. During cross-
examination, he admitted at Para-12 that the appellant was arrested
from the house of Kerketta and one bag was recovered from her
possession which was seized by the Officer-in-charge.
24. PW-7 (Martin Aind) is a villager and one of the seizure list
witnesses of the case. In his examination-in-chief, he deposed that the
occurrence had taken place 1½ years ago and at that time, he was at
his house. When after hearing the blasting of bomb, he went towards
the house of James Kerketta, he saw two dead bodies of Bablu Singh
and Om Prakash Lohra. The appellant and Rita were apprehended
there. He identified the appellant in court. He further stated that the
police had recovered and seized the articles in his presence and had
prepared a seizure list and he had signed over the seizure list. He
14
2026:JHHC:20005
exhibited his signature on the seizure list as Exhibit-1 and the
signature of Nirmal Aind on the seizure list at Exhibit-1/1. During
cross-examination, he admitted at Para-7 that the police had taken
them to Bishunpur police station and the police had taken his
signature and the signature of Nirmal Aind at the police station, but he
cannot say as to what was written in it. He further admitted at Para-8
that when he had reached, the police had not recovered any article
from the possession of the appellant. He also admitted that he has no
personal knowledge about the occurrence.
25. PW-8 (Nirmal Aind) is also a villager and the other seizure list
witness. In his examination-in-chief, he deposed that the occurrence
had taken place 1 ½ years ago and at that time, he was at his house.
He had heard sound and when the sound stopped, he went to the house
of James, he saw the police and two dead bodies. He also saw rifle
near the dead body. The police had taken Martin and him to
Bishunpur. He further stated that the appellant and Sunita were
apprehended by the police at the village. He identified the appellant in
the court. He further stated that the police had prepared the seizure list
at the place of occurrence and he had signed on it. He identified his
signature on the seizure list, which was already marked as Exhibit-1/1.
During cross-examination, he admitted at Para-6 that the police had
taken his signature at the police station, but he cannot say as to what
was written on the paper.
26. PW-9 (Naval Kishore Prasad) is the informant of the case and
he was also a member of the raiding party. In his examination-in-
chief, he deposed that on 11.01.2004, he was posted as the Officer-in-
charge, Bishunpur P.S. He further stated that two days ago, firing was
made by the extremists on the police station. To make enquiry of the
occurrence, he went to Jobhipat in the morning of 11.01.2004. On
seeing police, a young man tried to run away, but he was
apprehended. He disclosed his name as Rajesh Oraon and further
disclosed that the gang of Randhirjee and Bablujee is staying in
Village- Ninar. When they reached near the house of James Kerketta
15
2026:JHHC:20005
at Village- Ninar, on seeing the police, the guard started firing and the
extremists also started firing at the police and thereafter, the police
also made counter firing on them. Later on, the extremists started
fleeing away, but after chase, two lady extremists were apprehended.
They disclosed their names as Pramila and Sunitaji @ Ritaji and
Pramila had one child in her lap. Two dead bodies were also
recovered and it was told that one was Bablu Singh @ Niranjanji and
the other was Om Prakash Lohra. One police rifle, pellet of .303 and
one live cartridge in the magazine were recovered near the dead body.
45 live cartridges of .303 in 09 magazines kept in the Vindolia tied to
waist were recovered. One DBBL gun was recovered near the dead
body of Om Prakash Lohra. Bag was also recovered from the place of
occurrence in which main pack of Motorola and other articles were
kept. He further deposed that he had prepared the self-statement at the
place of occurrence. He exhibited the self-statement as Exhibit-2. He
further stated that the formal FIR was also prepared by him. He also
deposed that A.S.I. Turata Xalxo had prepared the seizure list in
presence of two independent witnesses at the place of occurrence. He
exhibited the seizure list as Exhibit-3. He identified the appellant in
court. During cross-examination, he admitted at Para-7 that the
appellant had one girl child in her lap and there was no lady constable
with the police party. He also admitted that the seizure list was
prepared at the place of occurrence and the seized articles are kept at
the Malkhana, but the articles were not sealed.
27. On 29.01.2007, statements of the appellant were recorded under
Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein she denied the incriminating
evidences put to her and claimed to be innocent and said in her
defence that on release, she will look after her children and will stay
in her house.
28. The appellant examined one witness namely, James Kerketta as
DW-1 in her defence. In his examination-in-chief, he identified the
appellant and her daughter in the court. He deposed that the appellant
has one more daughter who studies at Chatakpur. The appellant was
16
2026:JHHC:20005
living in his house at Ninarpat. She was working as a labour and
cooking food at his house. He further deposed that Bauxite Mines are
present beside his village where labours come to work. On the date of
occurrence, when the appellant was apprehended, he had gone out to
search labour. He further deposed that the appellant was living in his
house for one year, when she was apprehended and she used to cook
food in his house. The police had apprehended the appellant from his
house. The appellant was never involved in any extremist activities.
During cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that the
appellant is related to extremist organization.
29. This Court finds that P.W.-1 was a member of the raiding party
and he had supported the prosecution case, inasmuch as, when he
along with other members of the raiding party was on patrolling duty,
they caught hold of one person, who was running away and on
interrogation, he disclosed the names of other extremists who were
hidden. Subsequently, the raiding party proceeded and the extremists
hiding in the village opened fire and there was counter firing from the
side of the raiding party in self-defense. All men fled away and two
dead bodies were found and two women were caught at the place of
occurrence, namely, Pramila (appellant) and Rita @ Sunita, who
disclosed the names of dead persons. He has stated in his
examination-in-chief that on search, one pistol and a child was found
in possession of Pramila (the appellant) and weapon and bombs were
recovered from the placed of occurrence. He identified the appellant
lady with a girl in her lap. This witness has been cross-examination
and he had admitted that he had not made any statement earlier that
the pistol was seized from the possession of Pramila Devi. He further
admitted that officer-in-charge had searched the appellant in his
presence. Thus, the evidence of P.W.-1 reveals that he tried to
improve the case, but he was duly cross-examined.
30. P.W.-2 is also a member of raiding party. He had supported the
prosecution case and has stated that Pramila and Sunita were found
along with one child in course of search of place of occurrence. The
17
2026:JHHC:20005
appellant disclosed herself as wife of Zonal Commander of War
Group and the child as his daughter. During cross-examination, this
witness has admitted that he did not know as to who had apprehended
the appellant.
31. P.W.-3 is also a member of raiding party. This witness has also
supported the occurrence and has also stated that the appellant was
found along with one child in course of search of place of occurrence.
He identified the appellant in the court who was along with the child
aged about 2 years. During cross-examination, this witness has
admitted that he had not apprehended the appellant.
32. P.W.-4 is also a member of raiding party. He has also supported
the prosecution case and has clearly stated that the appellant was with
a child. During cross-examination, he has admitted that he could not
say as to whether anything was recovered from the possession of the
appellant. He also admitted at Para-14 that the appellant was searched
by one village lady, but he does not know as to who was that lady.
33. P.W.-5 is also a member of raiding party, who also supported
the occurrence. He identified the appellant and during cross-
examination, he admitted that the appellant was apprehended by the
officer-in-charge, but she was not searched in his presence.
34. P.W.-6 is also a member of the raiding party. During cross-
examination, he stated that the appellant was arrested from the house
of Kerketta and one bag was recovered from her possession which
was seized by the Officer-in-charge.
35. P.W.-7 is a seizure list witness and he identified the appellant in
the court and stated that the appellant and another lady were
apprehended on the spot. However, during cross-examination, he
stated that the police had taken him to the police station and has also
stated that the police had not recovered any article from the
possession of the appellant.
36. P.W.-8 is another seizure list witness, who identified the
appellant in the court. During cross-examination, he stated that the
18
2026:JHHC:20005
police had taken his signature at the police station, but he cannot say
as to what was written on the paper.
37. P.W.-9 is the informant of the case. He has also supported the
prosecution case and stated that all the extremists fled away and two
ladies were apprehended and the appellant had a child in her lap.
During cross-examination, he has stated that the appellant had a child
in her lap and there was no lady constable with the police party. He
had also stated that the seizure list was prepared at the place of
occurrence and seized articles were kept in Malkhana, but the articles
were not sealed.
38. The signatures of P.Ws. -7 and 8 on the seizure list have been
marked as Exhibit-1 and 1/1 and the signature of the informant on the
seizure list was marked as Exhibit-3.
39. The evidences on record reveal that large number of extremists
gathered at the place of occurrence and when the raiding party
reached there, there was exchange of fire and all the extremists ran
away and two women were apprehended on the spot. Admittedly, the
appellant was found with a baby on her lap at the place of occurrence
and she happened to be the wife of one of the extremists, who is said
to have fled away from the place of occurrence. However, there is no
specific or overt act assigned to the appellant and she was found with
a baby of 1½ years on her lap.
40. P.W.-1 has tried to improve the case by stating that a pistol was
recovered from the possession of the appellant, but there was no such
material on record and his statement of recovery of pistol from the
possession of the appellant appears to be an afterthought. He had not
made any such statement earlier. None of the witnesses have stated
that any such arms or ammunitions were recovered from the
possession of the appellant. The prosecution has tried to make out a
case that the appellant is also an extremist associated with the other
co-accused, but there is no material on record that the appellant was a
member of any extremist group or organization. No other criminal
case has been found recorded against the appellant.
19
2026:JHHC:20005
41. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, it
appears that the appellant has been made an accused and termed as an
extremist only for the reason that she happens to be the wife of an
extremist, who is a co-accused in the present case and that she was
present at the place of occurrence. It is not in dispute that the appellant
was apprehended at the place of occurrence and at that point of time
she was having a child aged 1 and ½ years on her lap.
42. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is
of the considered view that the prosecution has not been able to
establish the case against the appellant. This court is of the considered
view 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.
43. Thus, there is no definite evidence on record with regard to
recovery of any fire-arm or incriminating article from the possession
of the appellant. There is also no direct and specific evidence with
regard to any overt act committed by the appellant. There is also no
sufficient evidence on record to suggest that the appellant was
member of any extremist group or organization.
44. This Court is of the considered view that the learned court has
not considered the aforesaid aspects of the matter while convicting the
appellant. The learned court has recorded that the witnesses have
proved that when firing was opened by the extremists, the appellant
was present with the group and also recorded that the evidences have
further proved that she was an active member of extremist group and
even if she did not make any firing on the police person, she was
found guilty of the alleged offence. This court is of the considered
view that the learned trial court failed to consider that no material was
placed on record to show that the appellant was an active member of
the extremist group and her presence at the place of occurrence was
not sufficient to convict the appellant.
20
2026:JHHC:20005
45. Although the appellant has served out the substantial sentences
awarded to her and after payment of the fine amounts, she has been
released from jail custody, it appears to be a case of acquittal of the
appellant from the charges framed against her.
46. Accordingly, the impugned judgement of conviction and
sentence is set-aside and this appeal is allowed.
47. Pending I.A, if any, is dismissed as not pressed.
48. Let the original records be sent back to the court concerned.
49. Let a copy of this judgement be communicated to the concerned
court through ‘FAX/e-mail’.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Dated: 06.07.2026
Uploaded On: 07.07.2026
Mukul/-
21
