In a significant judgment carrying sharp observations on investigation standards in major anti-Naxal operations, the Chhattisgarh High Court has upheld the acquittal of all accused persons in the 2010 Tadmetla massacre case, observing that the prosecution failed to establish guilt through legally admissible and reliable evidence despite the gravity of the attack in which 76 security personnel were killed. Dismissing the State Government’s acquittal appeal against the January 7, 2013 trial court verdict, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal remarked that it was ‘deeply painful’ that such a serious case involving mass casualties and national security implications ultimately collapsed because investigators could not produce sustainable evidence against the accused. The case relates to the April 6, 2010 Maoist ambush in Tadmetla forest under Chintagufa police station limits in Sukma district. According to the prosecution case, heavily armed Maoists attacked personnel of the CRPF’s 62nd Battalion and State Police during an area domination operation conducted between April 4 and April 7, 2010, leaving 76 security personnel dead and resulting in large-scale looting of weapons. The High Court noted that although the prosecution examined 43 witnesses and produced 156 documents during trial, none of the eyewitnesses identified the accused as actual perpetrators of the attack. The court also recorded that key prosecution witnesses had turned hostile during proceedings.

 

Appearing for the State, Advocate General Vivek Sharma argued that the trial court failed to properly appreciate the alleged confession of accused Barse Lakhma under Section 164 CrPC, seizure of explosives and the prosecution plea seeking examination of seven injured CRPF personnel claimed to be eyewitnesses. However, the Division Bench observed that the alleged confession lacked independent corroboration. It further noted that explosives, pipe bombs, grenades and rifles were recovered from the place of occurrence and not from possession of the accused persons. Importantly, the prosecution failed to produce any Forensic Science Laboratory report certifying the seized material as explosive. The Bench also pointed to major procedural deficiencies, including absence of mandatory prosecution sanction under the Arms Act and failure to conduct any Test Identification Parade of the accused. The court observed that the chain of circumstantial evidence remained incomplete and failed to establish any direct or indirect nexus between the accused and the alleged offences. “Mere suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof beyond reasonable doubt,” the Bench said while dismissing the State appeal. The High Court also directed the State Government to ensure stricter investigative standards in future cases involving mass casualties and national security threats, including timely forensic examination, proper preservation of evidence and prompt identification procedures.