Attack Was Not Just on Police, But on the Sovereignty of the State: Jharkhand High Court Commutes Death Sentence in SP Ambush Case

“Where There Is Judicial Doubt, Death Penalty Cannot Survive—Split Verdict Sufficient to Commute Sentence”, In a powerful and legally significant judgment Jharkhand High Court refused to confirm the death sentence awarded to two Maoist extremists for the brutal ambush and murder of Superintendent of Police (SP), Pakur, and five other police personnel in 2013. While the conviction was upheld, the Court commuted the death penalty to life imprisonment, citing a split verdict between two earlier judges on the core issue of guilt.

Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary, speaking as the third judge under Section 392 CrPC, after the Division Bench delivered conflicting opinions, held that although the offence shook the foundation of the State’s authority, judicial caution demands that where “there is reasonable doubt reflected even within the Court, the finality of death cannot be imposed.”

The case, arising from the July 2, 2013 Maoist ambush, had captured national attention and raised serious questions about the protection of police officers, especially those leading anti-extremist operations. The trial court had imposed the death penalty, branding the crime among the rarest of rare, but the High Court has now taken a more nuanced view—convicting, yet commuting.

“Aimed Not at Men, But at the State Itself”—Court Reaffirms Conviction for Targeted Ambush on SP and Escort Team

Holding that the ambush was a premeditated assault not just on individuals but on the State itself, the Court did not mince words in describing the gravity of the offence.

“The attack was not merely upon the police force, but upon the sovereign authority of the State, exercised through its law enforcement agencies,” the Court observed. “The very foundation of the nation stands imperilled if armed groups are permitted to challenge and overwhelm the executive arm of the State.”

The Court found no ambiguity in the fact that six police personnel were brutally murdered in a calculated ambush in the forests between Jamni and Amtala villages, and the extremists looted INSAS and AK-47 rifles, as well as the bulletproof jacket of the slain SP. These facts, it held, were conclusively established through medical reports, eyewitnesses, and timely FIRs.

The incident was described as "a cold-blooded assault on law and order", meticulously carried out with high-powered firearms, and aimed at demoralising the police force and undermining the State’s anti-Maoist efforts.

“Testimonies of the Injured Were Not Just Credible—They Bore the Ring of Truth”

The crux of the defence rested on questioning the identification of the accused, with emphasis on the absence of a Test Identification Parade (TIP) and alleged inconsistencies in witness accounts. The Court, however, dismissed these objections, finding the in-court identification by two injured witnesses—PW-30 (SP’s bodyguard) and PW-31 (Scorpio driver)—to be both credible and legally sustainable.

“Testimony of PW-30 and PW-31 has a ring of truth,” the Court ruled. “There is nothing on record to remotely suggest that these two witnesses were actuated by any extraneous consideration or motive to falsely implicate the appellants.”

It added that the failure to conduct a TIP was not fatal, especially since the accused were named in the FIR and identified in court. “The court identification itself is a good identification in the eye of the law,” the Court noted, citing established precedent.

While PW-12 had turned hostile, the Court found that his testimony did not weaken the prosecution case. “Even if one injured witness fails to support the case, the cogent and credible testimony of the other two cannot be discredited,” it said.

“Judicial Doubt Is Enough To Take Death Off the Table”—Split Opinion Becomes Decisive

Though the High Court recognised the extraordinary nature of the crime and the absence of mitigating factors, the difference of opinion between the Division Bench judges on conviction weighed heavily against the confirmation of the death sentence.

“One Hon’ble Judge acquitted, and the other confirmed the death penalty. In such circumstances, even if the conviction is affirmed, the sentence of death cannot stand,” Justice Choudhary held, invoking the principle laid down in Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad (1954) 2 SCC 826.

The Court thus answered Death Reference No. 04 of 2018 in the negative, stating, “Despite the gravity of the offence, the finality of the death sentence must yield where even a shadow of judicial doubt is cast.”

The death penalty under Sections 302 and 396 IPC was commuted to life imprisonment, with a fine of ₹10,000 imposed on each convict. All other convictions under Sections 307, 333, 353, 427 IPC, Section 27 of Arms Act, and Section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act were affirmed.

“Participation, Not Conspiracy”—Court Discards Charges Under Sections 120B and 109 IPC

In a significant clarification of legal doctrine, the Court set aside the convictions under Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy) and 109 (abetment) of the IPC.

“Proof of the principal offence does not perforce lead to proof of criminal conspiracy,” the Court said. “There should be evidence—spoken, written or conduct-based—of pre-concert or instigation. That is missing here.”

It also clarified that where the accused are present and active participants, abetment under Section 109 is legally inapplicable. “One cannot be both an abettor and a principal offender,” the Court held. “The charge under Section 109 IPC is therefore not proved.”

A Judgment That Walks the Line Between Justice and Caution

This verdict represents a careful balance between retributive justice and procedural fairness. While it reaffirms the conviction in one of the most heinous attacks on police officers in Jharkhand’s history, it also underscores that death penalty must meet a very high threshold, especially where judges themselves are divided on basic findings.

“There cannot be any certainty or mathematical proof in criminal law—only reasonable certainty,” the Court said, quoting long-standing principles on ‘proof’ under the Evidence Act. It concluded:

“Law cannot afford any favourite other than the truth.”

With this, the High Court has signalled that while no guilty shall escape, no punishment shall be executed without absolute procedural sanctity—even in the most emotionally and politically charged cases.

Date of Decision: 08 December 2025