Demand to Set Aside Capital Sentences in the 2013 Jhiram Ghati Case
The Issue
Demand to Set Aside Capital Sentences in the 2013 Jhiram Ghati Case
A Legal Analysis of the Special NIA Court Jagdalpur Judgment Sentencing Ten Local Bastar Adivasis to Death in Light of Indian Constitutional Jurisprudence and International Human Rights Law
Addressed To:
The Chief Justice and Companion Judges, High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur
(Confirmation Jurisdiction under Section 366/368 CrPC / Section 407/409 BNSS)
Email: rg.cghc@indiancourts.nic.in, highcourt.cg@nic.in
The Chief Justice of India and Companion Judges, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi
Email: supremecourt@nic.in
The President of India, Rashtrapati Bhavan, New Delhi
(Article 72 Clemency Jurisdiction)
Email: secy.president@rb.nic.in
The Governor of Chhattisgarh, Raj Bhavan, Raipur
(Article 161 Clemency Jurisdiction)
Email: rajbhavan.cg@nic.in
The National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST), New Delhi
Email: chairperson@ncst.nic.in, secy@ncst.nic.in
The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), New Delhi
Email: complaint.nhrc@nic.in, cr.nhrc@nic.in
The UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions
(Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Geneva)
Email: hrc-sr-eje@un.org
The UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
(Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Geneva)
Email: indigenous@ohchr.org, ohchr-submissions@un.org
1. Case Background and Details of Convicted Individuals
On 25 May 2013, an armed Maoist ambush struck the Parivartan Yatra convoy of the Indian National Congress in the Darbha/Jhiram Ghati valley, Bastar district, Chhattisgarh. The attack resulted in the deaths of 27 to 29 persons, including senior political leaders Mahendra Karma, Nand Kumar Patel, and V.C. Shukla, along with accompanying security personnel. The investigation was subsequently transferred to the National Investigation Agency under Case No. RC-06/2013/NIA/DLI.
On 5 September 2026, the Special NIA Court at Jagdalpur (Bastar) convicted ten charge-sheeted individuals, and on 16 September 2026, awarded capital punishment to all ten.
Crucially, all ten individuals are local Adivasis native to the Bastar region:
Pramila Modiyam (Female): Adivasi (Bastar, CG) — Alleged low-tier Sangham cadre / peripheral presence.
Chaitu Lekam alias Munna: Adivasi (Bastar, CG) — Alleged local militia / lower-tier support cadre.
Sumitra alias Punem Modiyam (Female): Adivasi (Bastar, CG) — Alleged local committee member / peripheral presence.
Mukka Mandvi: Local tribal villager (Bastar, CG) — Alleged logistical escort.
Kosa Kavasi alias Kosaram: Local tribal villager (Bastar, CG) — Alleged support cadre.
Aayata Markam: Local tribal villager (Bastar, CG) — Alleged militia member.
Madkami Deva: Local tribal villager (Bastar, CG) — Alleged peripheral support.
Joga Madkami: Local tribal villager (Bastar, CG) — Alleged militia support.
Banjami Sanna alias Chamru: Local tribal villager (Bastar, CG) — Alleged ground support.
Mahadev Nag: Local villager / Bastar native — Alleged lower-rung ground facilitation.
While the masterminds, military division heads, and senior Central Committee/Dandakaranya Special Zonal Committee (DKSZC) commanders of the CPI (Maoist) who orchestrated the operation remain classified as absconding or deceased, the ten individuals facing the death penalty are lower-rung indigenous villagers and local recruits against whom no direct fatal firearm discharge or individual physical act of homicide was established.
2. Grounds of Challenge Under Indian Law and Constitutional Jurisprudence
A. Unlawful Use of Constructive Liability (IPC Sections 34, 120B, 149) for Capital Punishment
The trial court convicted the accused under Sections 147, 148, 149, 120B, 121, 302, 307, 396, and 397 of the IPC. Under established Indian criminal jurisprudence, constructive or vicarious liability cannot be mechanically applied to impose the death penalty. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that capital punishment demands individual culpability, overt fatal action, and direct lethal participation proven beyond reasonable doubt. Imposing the death sentence wholesale on foot soldiers and local villagers without establishing specific fatal acts violates this core principle.
B. Violation of the "Rarest of Rare" Doctrine and Omission of Mitigating Factors
Under Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) and Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983), capital punishment is strictly confined to the "rarest of rare" cases where the alternative option of life imprisonment is unquestionably foreclosed. The court requires a full balancing of aggravating factors against mitigating circumstances. The convicts are impoverished Adivasis residing in a heavily militarized, conflict-affected forest zone where local civilians frequently face severe coercion from both armed insurgents and security operations. Their extreme socio-economic marginalization, absence of prior criminal convictions, and lack of any commanding or policy-making role within the outlawed group constitute significant mitigating circumstances that were not factored into the sentencing.
C. Non-Compliance with Mandatory Mitigation Guidelines (Manoj v. State of MP, 2022)
In Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022), a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court held that sentencing courts are constitutionally mandated to collect comprehensive socio-historical reports, psychiatric and psychological assessments, family backgrounds, and jail conduct records before considering a death sentence. Imposing capital punishment on ten individuals simultaneously without this mandatory individualized inquiry violates the guarantees of due process under Article 21 of the Constitution.
D. Incomplete Investigation and Scapegoating of Ground-Level Tribals
Families of victims, civil society groups, and political figures have consistently highlighted that the broader political conspiracy, intelligence failures, and senior leadership coordination behind the Jhiram Ghati ambush remain unresolved. Sentencing ten marginalized indigenous villagers to death while the core decision-makers remain untraced reduces the judicial outcome to targeting the most vulnerable participants.
3. Violation of International Human Rights Standards
A. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR, Article 6)
India ratified the ICCPR in 1979. Under Article 6(2), capital punishment may only be imposed for the "most serious crimes." The UN Human Rights Committee in General Comment No. 36 (2018) clarified that this standard is limited strictly to intentional killing, explicitly excluding the imposition of the death penalty on grounds of vicarious liability, accomplice presence, or group membership where the accused did not commit the lethal act directly.
B. UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP, Articles 2 & 7)
UNDRIP protects indigenous peoples' rights to life, liberty, and protection from discriminatory penal treatment. Indigenous populations caught in armed conflict zones face heightened vulnerability to coercion, systemic marginalization, and inadequate legal representation. Subjecting indigenous villagers to capital punishment under these structural conditions runs contrary to international indigenous rights principles.
C. UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) Safeguards (Resolution 1984/50)
Safeguard 1 requires that capital punishment only be applied when guilt is grounded in clear, convincing evidence leaving no room for alternative explanation. Safeguard 4 prohibits capital sentencing where fair trial standards, including linguistic access and culturally competent defense representation, were not adequately met.
4. Prayers and Demands
In light of the facts, constitutional principles, and international human rights obligations outlined above, the Petitioners respectfully demand:
Refusal of Confirmation: That the High Court of Chhattisgarh refuse to confirm the death reference under Section 366/368 of the CrPC (Section 407/409 of the BNSS) and set aside the death sentences awarded to all ten Adivasi convicts.
Individualized Re-Appraisal: That the appellate court re-examine the specific record of each convict, distinguishing between coerced presence or peripheral involvement and actual acts of lethal violence, ensuring no sentence of death rests solely on constructive liability.
Quashing for Procedural Defect: That the death sentences be set aside due to non-compliance with the mandatory socio-economic and psychological mitigation inquiry required by Manoj v. State of MP (2022).
Executive Clemency: That should ordinary appellate avenues be exhausted, the Governor of Chhattisgarh and the President of India exercise constitutional clemency under Articles 161 and 72 to commute the death sentences to non-capital prison terms.
Signatures
Dr Karthik Navayan Battula
Advocate, High Court of Telangana
Legal References:
Special NIA Court Jagdalpur, Judgment in RC-06/2013/NIA/DLI (September 2026)
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684
Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470
Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 9 SCC 340
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), 1966
UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), 2007
UN ECOSOC Safeguards Guaranteeing Protection of the Rights of Those Facing the Death Penalty (Resolution 1984/50)
27
The Issue
Demand to Set Aside Capital Sentences in the 2013 Jhiram Ghati Case
A Legal Analysis of the Special NIA Court Jagdalpur Judgment Sentencing Ten Local Bastar Adivasis to Death in Light of Indian Constitutional Jurisprudence and International Human Rights Law
Addressed To:
The Chief Justice and Companion Judges, High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur
(Confirmation Jurisdiction under Section 366/368 CrPC / Section 407/409 BNSS)
Email: rg.cghc@indiancourts.nic.in, highcourt.cg@nic.in
The Chief Justice of India and Companion Judges, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi
Email: supremecourt@nic.in
The President of India, Rashtrapati Bhavan, New Delhi
(Article 72 Clemency Jurisdiction)
Email: secy.president@rb.nic.in
The Governor of Chhattisgarh, Raj Bhavan, Raipur
(Article 161 Clemency Jurisdiction)
Email: rajbhavan.cg@nic.in
The National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST), New Delhi
Email: chairperson@ncst.nic.in, secy@ncst.nic.in
The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), New Delhi
Email: complaint.nhrc@nic.in, cr.nhrc@nic.in
The UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions
(Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Geneva)
Email: hrc-sr-eje@un.org
The UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
(Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Geneva)
Email: indigenous@ohchr.org, ohchr-submissions@un.org
1. Case Background and Details of Convicted Individuals
On 25 May 2013, an armed Maoist ambush struck the Parivartan Yatra convoy of the Indian National Congress in the Darbha/Jhiram Ghati valley, Bastar district, Chhattisgarh. The attack resulted in the deaths of 27 to 29 persons, including senior political leaders Mahendra Karma, Nand Kumar Patel, and V.C. Shukla, along with accompanying security personnel. The investigation was subsequently transferred to the National Investigation Agency under Case No. RC-06/2013/NIA/DLI.
On 5 September 2026, the Special NIA Court at Jagdalpur (Bastar) convicted ten charge-sheeted individuals, and on 16 September 2026, awarded capital punishment to all ten.
Crucially, all ten individuals are local Adivasis native to the Bastar region:
Pramila Modiyam (Female): Adivasi (Bastar, CG) — Alleged low-tier Sangham cadre / peripheral presence.
Chaitu Lekam alias Munna: Adivasi (Bastar, CG) — Alleged local militia / lower-tier support cadre.
Sumitra alias Punem Modiyam (Female): Adivasi (Bastar, CG) — Alleged local committee member / peripheral presence.
Mukka Mandvi: Local tribal villager (Bastar, CG) — Alleged logistical escort.
Kosa Kavasi alias Kosaram: Local tribal villager (Bastar, CG) — Alleged support cadre.
Aayata Markam: Local tribal villager (Bastar, CG) — Alleged militia member.
Madkami Deva: Local tribal villager (Bastar, CG) — Alleged peripheral support.
Joga Madkami: Local tribal villager (Bastar, CG) — Alleged militia support.
Banjami Sanna alias Chamru: Local tribal villager (Bastar, CG) — Alleged ground support.
Mahadev Nag: Local villager / Bastar native — Alleged lower-rung ground facilitation.
While the masterminds, military division heads, and senior Central Committee/Dandakaranya Special Zonal Committee (DKSZC) commanders of the CPI (Maoist) who orchestrated the operation remain classified as absconding or deceased, the ten individuals facing the death penalty are lower-rung indigenous villagers and local recruits against whom no direct fatal firearm discharge or individual physical act of homicide was established.
2. Grounds of Challenge Under Indian Law and Constitutional Jurisprudence
A. Unlawful Use of Constructive Liability (IPC Sections 34, 120B, 149) for Capital Punishment
The trial court convicted the accused under Sections 147, 148, 149, 120B, 121, 302, 307, 396, and 397 of the IPC. Under established Indian criminal jurisprudence, constructive or vicarious liability cannot be mechanically applied to impose the death penalty. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that capital punishment demands individual culpability, overt fatal action, and direct lethal participation proven beyond reasonable doubt. Imposing the death sentence wholesale on foot soldiers and local villagers without establishing specific fatal acts violates this core principle.
B. Violation of the "Rarest of Rare" Doctrine and Omission of Mitigating Factors
Under Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) and Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983), capital punishment is strictly confined to the "rarest of rare" cases where the alternative option of life imprisonment is unquestionably foreclosed. The court requires a full balancing of aggravating factors against mitigating circumstances. The convicts are impoverished Adivasis residing in a heavily militarized, conflict-affected forest zone where local civilians frequently face severe coercion from both armed insurgents and security operations. Their extreme socio-economic marginalization, absence of prior criminal convictions, and lack of any commanding or policy-making role within the outlawed group constitute significant mitigating circumstances that were not factored into the sentencing.
C. Non-Compliance with Mandatory Mitigation Guidelines (Manoj v. State of MP, 2022)
In Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022), a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court held that sentencing courts are constitutionally mandated to collect comprehensive socio-historical reports, psychiatric and psychological assessments, family backgrounds, and jail conduct records before considering a death sentence. Imposing capital punishment on ten individuals simultaneously without this mandatory individualized inquiry violates the guarantees of due process under Article 21 of the Constitution.
D. Incomplete Investigation and Scapegoating of Ground-Level Tribals
Families of victims, civil society groups, and political figures have consistently highlighted that the broader political conspiracy, intelligence failures, and senior leadership coordination behind the Jhiram Ghati ambush remain unresolved. Sentencing ten marginalized indigenous villagers to death while the core decision-makers remain untraced reduces the judicial outcome to targeting the most vulnerable participants.
3. Violation of International Human Rights Standards
A. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR, Article 6)
India ratified the ICCPR in 1979. Under Article 6(2), capital punishment may only be imposed for the "most serious crimes." The UN Human Rights Committee in General Comment No. 36 (2018) clarified that this standard is limited strictly to intentional killing, explicitly excluding the imposition of the death penalty on grounds of vicarious liability, accomplice presence, or group membership where the accused did not commit the lethal act directly.
B. UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP, Articles 2 & 7)
UNDRIP protects indigenous peoples' rights to life, liberty, and protection from discriminatory penal treatment. Indigenous populations caught in armed conflict zones face heightened vulnerability to coercion, systemic marginalization, and inadequate legal representation. Subjecting indigenous villagers to capital punishment under these structural conditions runs contrary to international indigenous rights principles.
C. UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) Safeguards (Resolution 1984/50)
Safeguard 1 requires that capital punishment only be applied when guilt is grounded in clear, convincing evidence leaving no room for alternative explanation. Safeguard 4 prohibits capital sentencing where fair trial standards, including linguistic access and culturally competent defense representation, were not adequately met.
4. Prayers and Demands
In light of the facts, constitutional principles, and international human rights obligations outlined above, the Petitioners respectfully demand:
Refusal of Confirmation: That the High Court of Chhattisgarh refuse to confirm the death reference under Section 366/368 of the CrPC (Section 407/409 of the BNSS) and set aside the death sentences awarded to all ten Adivasi convicts.
Individualized Re-Appraisal: That the appellate court re-examine the specific record of each convict, distinguishing between coerced presence or peripheral involvement and actual acts of lethal violence, ensuring no sentence of death rests solely on constructive liability.
Quashing for Procedural Defect: That the death sentences be set aside due to non-compliance with the mandatory socio-economic and psychological mitigation inquiry required by Manoj v. State of MP (2022).
Executive Clemency: That should ordinary appellate avenues be exhausted, the Governor of Chhattisgarh and the President of India exercise constitutional clemency under Articles 161 and 72 to commute the death sentences to non-capital prison terms.
Signatures
Dr Karthik Navayan Battula
Advocate, High Court of Telangana
Legal References:
Special NIA Court Jagdalpur, Judgment in RC-06/2013/NIA/DLI (September 2026)
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684
Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470
Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 9 SCC 340
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), 1966
UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), 2007
UN ECOSOC Safeguards Guaranteeing Protection of the Rights of Those Facing the Death Penalty (Resolution 1984/50)
Petition Updates
Share this petition
Petition created on 16 October 2026