5 min readNew DelhiJul 8, 2026 05:15 PM IST
The Jharkhand High Court has acquitted a woman convicted in an extremist case, observing that merely because she is the wife of an extremist was not sufficient to sustain her conviction, noting that she was just present at the place of occurrence, that too with a child aged one and a half years on her lap.
Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary observed there was no definite evidence on record with regard to recovery of any firearm or incriminating article from the possession of the appellant.
“This court is of the considered view that mere presence of the appellant at the place of occurrence, that too with a child aged one and a half years on the lap and merely because she happens to be the wife of an extremist, is not sufficient to sustain the conviction of the appellant,” the July 6 order noted.
In January 2004, during a search operation against the suspected extremists, a police encounter took place in Gumla district, Jharkhand. A team of police reached the village after receiving information that a group of extremists carrying arms and ammunition was hiding there.
Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary acquitted the appellant, observing that there was no evidence to prove she was guilty.
Firing between extremists and police
During the operation, firing took place between the extremists and the police party. After the firing had stopped, two alleged extremists were found dead, and police claimed to have recovered the weapons, ammunition, explosives and extremist-related literature from the spot.
The police had arrested two women, including the appellant, who was found with a one and a half year old daughter on her lap. It was alleged that she was involved with the extremist group and was the wife of a zonal commander of the group.
The appellant was booked under provisions of the IPC, the Arms Act and the Criminal Law Amendment Act. In 2007, she was convicted by the trial court and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment; later in 2011 she was released from jail.
Story continues below this ad
Subsequently, the appellant challenged her conviction before the high court, contending that there was no specific allegation against her, other than that she was the wife of an extremist, and that no weapon was recovered from her possession.
Advocate A K Chaturvedi submitted that there was no material to prove that the appellant was a member of an extremist group as no other case was registered against her. It was contended that
merely because the lady happened to be the wife of one extremist, the same by itself cannot be a ground to sustain her conviction.
It was submitted that as per the case of the prosecution, the co-accused persons fled away from the place of occurrence and arms and ammunition were recovered from the place of occurrence, but because she was present at the place of occurrence, conviction of the appellant under the Arms Act is also not sustainable.
Story continues below this ad
Advocate Rajesh Kumar stated that the submissions made on behalf of the appellant and submitted that the judgment of conviction and sentence does not require any interference.
No definite evidence to prove appellant extremist: Court
- The appellant has been made an accused and termed as an extremist only for the reason that she happens to be the wife of an extremist.
- The mere presence of the appellant at the place of occurrence, that too with a child aged one and a half years on her lap, is not sufficient to sustain the conviction.
- There is no definite evidence on record concerning recovery of any firearm or incriminating article from the possession of the appellant.
- There is no evidence on record to suggest that the appellant was a member of any extremist group or organisation.
‘Acquittal from charges’
The court held that the trial court had failed to consider that there was no material on record to establish that the appellant was an active member of the extremist group and her presence at the place of occurrence was not sufficient to convict her.
The court noted that although the appellant had served the substantial part of the sentence and was released from custody after payment of the fine, the case warranted her acquittal from the charges framed against her. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and sentence was set aside, and this appeal is allowed.
