The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Monday upheld the judgment of a trial court acquitting seven suspected ‘Maoists’ arrested on the charge of engaging in arms training in Kodaikanal forests in 2008.
The court was hearing an appeal preferred by the State against the judgment of the Dindigul Principal District and Sessions Court, which in 2021 acquitted Kannan, Kalidoss, Bhagat Singh, Reena Jois Mary, Shenbagavalli, Ranjith and Neelamegam.
The prosecution case was that on receiving information that ‘Maoists’ were undergoing arms training in Kodaikanal hills, the Special Task Force conducted a search operation, during which one Naveen Prasad was killed in an encounter. Seven others who had escaped were secured later.
The State submitted that the trial court failed to consider the evidence of the Forensic Science Laboratory which would prove that the police action was not an encounter, but an act of self-defence. The counsel for the seven persons submitted that no search was conducted by the police in Kodaikanal hills. Since the police encountered a person, in order to conceal it, they registered a false case.
A Division Bench of Justices P. Velmurugan and R. Poornima pointed out that eyewitnesses admitted the incident took place in a dense forest and were unable to identify the accused at the time of the occurrence. No photographs were taken by the police to identify the place of occurrence and the body of the deceased.
It was admitted by police officials that forest officials were on duty throughout the area. As per a witness evidence, forest officials accompanied the police duting the operation. However, none of the forest officials was made a witness in the case. Recovery of weapons from the place of occurrence was not properly proved by the prosecution. Further, there was no record to show that blood-stained earth which was reportedly recovered was sent to laboratories, the court said.
The court said mere pendency of previous criminal cases against the accused did not establish their involvement in the present case. The prosecution totally failed to establish that the accused alone participated in the alleged incident. The prosecution had not produced an accident register, blood-stained articles or other materials sent for forensic examination to substantiate that the accused sustained gunshot injuries at the place of occurrence. The medical evidence also did not support the prosecution, the court said.
Moreover, there was an unexplained delay in registering and forwarding the FIR, which created serious doubts. Some of the explosives were allegedly kept in a private godown, and were not sent for chemical analysis, the court observed.
Published – November 11, 2025 12:53 am IST
