It is a known fact that a special NIA court recently sentenced 10 Adivasis to death in the 2013 Jhiram Ghati case. Among those sentenced are eight men and two women. A few people have already responded, strongly opposing this sentence. Upon hearing about this verdict, I was immediately reminded of another case involving the death penalty—the 2007 Chilkari incident case in Jharkhand. There are many similarities between these two cases. In both, the majority of the accused are Adivasis, alleged to be members of the Maoist party.
Before speaking about the Jhiram Ghati Verdict, it is necessary to briefly review that incident as well. Remembering why it occurred is even more crucial. The government entered into agreements with several corporate companies to hand over the natural wealth of Adivasi areas to comprador big bourgeoisie and imperialists. Local Adivasi people fiercely resisted this. To suppress their struggle, the government unleashed a war against the people in Bastar in June 2005. Mobilizing mercenary forces under the leadership of feudal dominant forces, it launched a terrible assault on the people under the protection of thousands of police personnel. That was ‘Salwa Judum’. This was led by the then-leader of the opposition, Mahendra Karma of the Congress party. Salwa Judum committed numerous atrocities, such as attacking hamlets, burning people alive, murders, sexual assaults on women, destruction of property, burning of houses, and destruction of crops. Choosing Bijapur and Bhairamgarh blocks as pilot blocks, they destroyed hundreds of villages there and forcibly moved thousands of displaced Adivasis to relief camps (Raahat Shibir) that resembled Nazi concentration camps. Women in those camps faced continuous sexual assaults, and young men were subjected to torture. There were no cases, no investigation, and no arrests against these atrocities committed by the government’s proxies. The people, who had been experiencing living hell on a daily basis for eight years, attacked and eliminated Mahendra Karma in May 2013 with the help of the Janatana Sarkars (people’s governments) and the people’s army they had built. This was the Jhiram Ghati incident.
27 people died in this incident. Although the primary target was Mahendra Karma, because the attack occurred on a Congress convoy in a public space, several others died along with him. Before immediately making assertions about the wrongs in this incident, what anyone should think about is: what is to be said about the deaths of numerous Adivasis that led to this incident? If the government—which proclaims itself as the protector of Adivasis—behaves in such a manner, who should sentence them to death? Who should stop the massacre taking place against Adivasis? That was a punishment imposed on the accused during a rebellion mounted by the people to the best of their capabilities. Since they do not possess the vast machinery that the state has, some mistakes occurred in it; these certainly should have been avoided. But what does a government that ought to be responsible do? Because the incident occurred in the Kunta block, it filed cases against 37 people from those villages and surrounding villages combined. Except for two, all the rest are Adivasis. On September 25, 2026, the NIA court delivered its verdict sentencing ten of them. This judgment must be confirmed by the High Court.
Among those sentenced are Pramila Modiyam, Sumitra Poonem, Banjami Sanna, Aayata Madkam, Mukka Mandavi, Madkami Deva, Chaitu Lekam, Kawasi Kosa, Mahadeva Nag, and Joga Madkami. All of them are currently in the Jagdalpur Central Jail.
Here, let us also recall the Chilkari incident. Adivasis in Jharkhand have been fighting for Jal, Jangal, Jameen (water, forest, land), demanding the implementation of Adivasi laws with the objective that ownership of natural resources should remain with the Adivasis. With the intention of cutting off revolutionary support to them, the then-BJP government supported the formation of an organization called “Nagarik Suraksha Samiti” and other similar organizations in Jharkhand, just as Salwa Judum was started in Bastar. Nunulal Marandi, the younger brother of then-Chief Minister Babulal Marandi, was the key figure behind this organization. This organization engaged in numerous attacks and murders against the revolutionary movement and the people there. Consequently, targeting him as the main objective, an attack was carried out on him following a football match celebration in Chilkari of Giridih district. Although Nunulal escaped this incident, 20 people died, including Babulal Marandi’s son. This incident occurred on October 26, 2007.
In June 2011, the Giridih Sessions Court awarded the death sentence to four persons in this case. In this case as well, all the main accused were Adivasis. The four sentenced to death were Jeetan Marandi, Chatrapati Mandal, Manoj Rajwar, and Anil Ram. Among them, Jeetan Marandi was a cultural artist and the president of the organization Jharkhand Abhen. When I attended a two-day all-India level conference in Ranchi in March 2006 on the topic “Adivasi Life – Struggles,” Jeetan’s troupe gave several cultural performances. Jharkhand Abhen was not a banned organization, nor was it an organization engaged in armed struggle. Jeetan Marandi was already a popular cultural artist. Neither he nor the other three had any connection to this incident. Yet, in order to show some action, the police arrested them. Even though security guards present on stage during the incident stated that they could not identify who participated, the death sentence was handed down without any evidentiary proof. When this sentence was pronounced, I was in the Hazaribagh Central Jail in Jharkhand. The three sentenced alongside Jeetan Marandi were brought from Giridih to Hazaribagh Jail. At that time, all of us went on a hunger strike protesting this death sentence.
Because Jeetan was also known as a cultural artist to mass organizations in united Andhra Pradesh, significant publicity took place here as well. Numerous programs were held demanding the revocation of the death sentence. Due to the widespread nationwide campaign, the abolishment of the death penalty came under discussion once again. Finally, in December 2011, the court acquitted all four of them and released them. It is for this exact reason that I speak about this case: if people who are innocent are executed and later proven innocent, can their lives be brought back? That is the primary question.
There are numerous loopholes in the Jhiram Ghati case as well. Sentences were handed down solely based on their confessions, without proper physical or documentary evidence. Most people probably know how confessions are taken in police custody. The police themselves write them. They might torture the individuals to force them to sign. If those people are vulnerable, marginalized souls with no backing whatsoever, this is what is done to them. Or they might threaten to do anything to them.
When conscious political prisoners refuse to sign, a new method has been devised in recent times. Without even asking them to sign the confession, signatures are obtained from witnesses brought in by the police themselves, affirming that the confession took place in their presence. This has happened recently in the cases of many activists, including myself. According to the law, these confessions are not admissible as evidence. Even if a confession is to be given voluntarily, it must be recorded before a Magistrate. The reality is that this “voluntariness” is not always truly voluntary. Handing down a death sentence solely on the basis of such confessions implies that the courts have no regard for what is written in the law.
I am not going into the other legal details of this case in depth. Legal experts and friends who read the 185-page judgment will write about them anyway. I am merely mentioning one or two points as examples. All the accused should not be held equally responsible and all given the death penalty; it depends on the specific role they played in the incident. In one instance, they stated that some of the witnesses presented did not know the Gondi language. Elsewhere, those same witnesses—who allegedly did not know Gondi—detailed many things, claiming they overheard the accused talking among themselves during the incident. Despite all these contradictions, because the judge intended to impose a conviction, he simply imposed it.
Apart from this, another perspective is that the death penalty itself should be abolished. Many countries have already abolished capital punishment. That campaign has been running in India for a long time. Numerous former judges have also spoken out in support of abolishing the death penalty.
The arguments of those appealing for the abolition of the death penalty may vary. For instance, Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer, during an appeal for the release of Perarivalan—an accused in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case—stated: “I agree with the argument that the notion that death sentences can end murders is no longer valid. Life is given by God; it is deeply precious. As Gandhiji said, no one has the right to take it away. I support that view. I hope that India, like many other nations, will abolish the death penalty.”
In this context, to advance this campaign, it is vital to learn about the campaign against the death penalty, the arguments of various prominent figures regarding its abolition, and specifically to read “An Appeal from the Death row” by Perarivalan, an accused in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, along with the arguments of others supporting that appeal. (All these arguments have been compiled in book form) One incident mentioned in this book must be highlighted here.
In 2006, a police inspector named Khadir Bargir committed suicide in Mumbai. In his suicide note, he wrote that in 1995, a rape occurred under the jurisdiction of the Oshiwara Police Station where he was working. Not a single clue was found. Fearing threats from the SP that he would be dismissed if the suspect was not presented in court by the next day, he arrested an innocent rag picker named Arumugam, fabricated evidence, and presented him. Consequently, Arumugam was sentenced to life imprisonment. Overcome by intense guilt, the inspector wrote all these details before taking his life. By that time, Arumugam had already spent eleven years in prison. What if the inspector’s conscience had not been stirred? Similarly, in the Ayesha Meera case from united Andhra Pradesh, we know how Satyam Babu unjustly spent nine years in jail.
However, even if they are genuinely guilty, should the death penalty not be imposed? No, it should not. The penal code aims to bring about reformation in offenders—even in India! That is precisely why the government itself decided to stop calling prisons “jails” and instead refer to them as “Correctional Homes.” The intent of the penal code is to control crimes by isolating an individual in prison so they no longer have the opportunity to commit that crime. The code states that prison life should bring about a transformation in the individual’s life. Yet, obsolete punishments are being imposed excessively in recent times. The phrase “death penalty should be awarded only in the rarest of rare cases” has lost all its meaning.
There is another dimension to the Jhiram Ghati case that needs to be discussed. Out of a total of 37 people named in this case, only 10 were arrested. In other words, after the incident occurred, some Adivasis were arrested and this case was framed against them, while another 27 were added to it. While the 10 people arrested in this case were sentenced to death, the remaining 27 were declared absconding. By the time the judgment was delivered, one of them, Paka Hanumanthu, was killed in an encounter, while the remaining 26 surrendered. However, because they surrendered, the government decided not to prosecute the case against them. That is good and welcoming. But when the government chooses not to pursue a case like that, shouldn’t the same benefit be extended to those who were arrested 13 years ago and have been languishing in prison? They could at least be released by considering these 13 years as their served sentence.
In fact, speaking of ground realities, had there been no Salwa Judum, Jhiram Ghati would not have happened either. Therefore, a government that failed to punish those who committed crimes under Salwa Judum has no moral right to punish the accused of Jhiram Ghati. Decades ago, people’s faith in the Indian judicial system began to erode. Ongoing painful reminders like the “wounds of Gujarat” serve as living proof of this. Incidents like ‘Una’ and ‘Karamchedu’ continue to happen. Justice is absent anyway. But is anything at least happening according to the law? No, not even that. When the guilt of the accused cannot be proven, there is no right to punish them at all. Not only should the death penalty in the Jhiram Ghati case be set aside, but all of them must also be released. All political prisoners languishing in jails must be released. The death penalty must be abolished.
(Translated from the Telugu article published in Vasantha Megham website on October 1st 2026)
