A special National Investigation Agency (NIA) court in Jagdalpur, Bastar district, has sentenced 10 people to death in connection with the 2013 Jhiram Valley Maoist attack. The case concerns the attack on a Congress convoy in which at least 27 people, including senior Congress leaders, were killed and around 38 others were injured.
The court convicted the 10 accused under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The death sentences were imposed in connection with charges of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B and murder under Section 302 of the IPC.
The 10 convicted are Pramila Modiyam, Chaitu Lekam alias Munna, Sumita alias Punem Modiyam, Mukka Mandvi, Kosa Kavasi alias Kosaram, Aayata Markam, Madkami Deva, Joga Madkami, Banjami Sanna alias Chamru and Mahadev Nag. One other accused died during the trial, while 28 people named as accused in the chargesheet have been listed as wanted.
Background to the Attack
The 2013 attack took place against the backdrop of a prolonged conflict between Maoist groups, the state and local communities in Bastar.
Mahendra Karma, one of the senior Congress leaders killed in the attack, had been associated with the Salwa Judum movement, which was established as an anti-Maoist mobilisation in Chhattisgarh. Salwa Judum and the security operations associated with it have been the subject of considerable controversy, including allegations of human-rights violations against tribal communities.
Supporters of the Maoist attack have at times presented it as a response to violence associated with the conflict. Such interpretations, however, remain matters of political and ideological debate and do not alter the legal questions concerning responsibility for the Jhiram Valley attack.
Questions About the Convictions and Incarceration
The 10 people sentenced to death have maintained that they were not responsible for the attack and that they were falsely implicated. Their families have also contested the allegations against them.
According to critics of the prosecution case, the accused come from economically disadvantaged Adivasi communities and have spent approximately 13 years in custody during the proceedings. Questions have consequently been raised about the length of their incarceration and the evidence establishing their individual responsibility for the attack.
Critics have also pointed to the distinction between the alleged planners of the attack and the people convicted in the present case. According to the prosecution's case, senior Maoist leaders were involved in planning and directing the attack. Critics argue that the individuals sentenced in the present proceedings should be assessed on the basis of evidence establishing their own individual roles rather than on the basis of the broader responsibility attributed to Maoist leadership.
The conflict in Bastar has also resulted in civilians living in areas where armed groups and security forces operate being exposed to competing forms of violence and state action.
Human-rights advocate and researcher Bela Bhatia has raised questions about the identification of those responsible for large-scale attacks such as the Jhiram Valley incident. She has argued that the evidence against some accused persons did not include eyewitness testimony identifying them as having fired weapons or directly participated in the attack. She has also raised concerns about arrests made on the basis of suspicion in cases involving people from nearby villages.
Bhatia has cited examples of people arrested in 2014 whose circumstances, according to her assessment, raised questions about their involvement. These include a former sarpanch of Chikpal village, a person who had married in another village around the time of the incident, and a woman who had briefly worked with the Chetana Natya Manch during her childhood but had left the organisation in 2010.
These claims are disputed matters concerning the evidence and individual cases and would ultimately have to be assessed through the judicial process.
Debate Over the Death Penalty
The death penalty in the Jhiram Valley case has also prompted a broader debate about capital punishment in India.
Opponents of capital punishment argue that it is inconsistent with the principles of the right to life and dignity and that its application can have a disproportionate impact on economically and socially disadvantaged people. They also argue that individual culpability must be established carefully before imposing the maximum available punishment.
India continues to retain capital punishment in law, although its application is restricted to the most serious cases under the constitutional framework and judicial doctrine. A number of countries have abolished the death penalty, while others continue to retain it.
Critics of the sentence argue that the relationship between poverty, access to legal representation and exposure to severe criminal penalties deserves particular attention in cases involving people from disadvantaged communities.
Bela Bhatia has also criticised the court's reference to the requirement that a death sentence be confirmed by the High Court. She has argued that the possibility of appellate review does not remove the need for careful consideration of the evidence and individual responsibility at the trial stage.
The death sentences will be subject to the prescribed appellate and confirmation process before they can be carried out.
Need for Review of Long-Pending Cases
The death sentences also need to be considered in the wider context of the criminal-justice system in Bastar.
The state government has, in recent years, emphasised surrender, rehabilitation, dialogue and measures intended to reduce the armed conflict involving Maoist groups. At the same time, many Adivasi people have spent prolonged periods in prison in cases related to alleged Maoist activity.
This has raised questions about whether there should be a systematic mechanism for reviewing cases in which people have spent long periods in prison while maintaining that they had no involvement with Maoist organisations.
Any such review would need to operate through a transparent legal process and assess each case individually. It could consider the strength of the evidence, the duration of incarceration, the outcome of previous proceedings and any new material relevant to the accused person's involvement.
A credible process for reviewing long-pending cases could form part of a broader effort to address the legal and social consequences of the prolonged conflict in Bastar.
The central issue is the distinction between accountability for violence and the need to ensure that criminal responsibility is established through due process and evidence. A transition towards greater peace would require attention both to crimes committed by armed groups and to allegations of wrongful arrest, prolonged detention and wrongful prosecution.
Meanwhile, international solidarity protests and actions were reported across several countries. In Zurich, Switzerland, a solidarity action was held against state repression, military operations, arrests, alleged massacres, and death sentences in India. Participants called for international solidarity with political prisoners and opposition to the death sentences against the ten defendants, with a mock gallows displayed at the protest site. In Bern, Switzerland, a statement was read during a demonstration against deportations expressing solidarity with those sentenced in India and opposition to the reported repression.
In Istanbul, Turkey, a solidarity event organized as part of the international campaign included a screening of Operation Kagar: The Final Warning, followed by discussions on the situation in India and demands for cancellation of the death sentences against the ten defendants and an end to Operation Kagar. Another protest was held at the Propylaea in Turkey on October 3, where demonstrators called for solidarity with the ten defendants and with those involved in the Indian revolutionary movement.
In Britain, demonstrations and solidarity actions took place in London, Manchester, Birmingham, and Sheffield as part of the September 26 International Day of Action, with calls for the release of political prisoners and opposition to the Lucknow Conspiracy Case. In France, the Anti-Imperialist League's France section held a demonstration on September 29 in solidarity with people in India.
In New York, Stop Operation Kagar NYC issued a statement expressing solidarity with the People's War in India, commemorating those it described as martyrs, and calling for the freedom of political prisoners. In Bangladesh, the Revolutionary Student–Youth Movement held a rally on September 26 demanding the release of political prisoners in India and an end to repression, massacres, and ethnic oppression.
---
*Freelance journalist
Comments