To
The Sub-Collector
Rampachodavaram
ASR district
Sir,
Sub: Submission by Human Rights Forum (HRF) to Magisterial Inquiry into the death of three members of the CPI (Maoist) on June 18, 2025 in an alleged encounter with the police near Kintukuru village in Akuru panchayat of Rampachodavaram mandal, Alluri Sitharama Raju district
We have gathered from media reports that a magisterial inquiry is being conducted by you today, 25-08-2025, into the deaths of three persons – Gajarla Ravi (of Velishala village in Chityala mandal, Jayashankar Bhupalpally district, Telangana), Venkata Ravivarma Chaitanya (of Karakavanipalem in Pendurthi mandal, Visakhapatnam district, AP) and Kovvasi Anju, an Adivasi from Bodagubal village, Konta block, Sukma district of Chattisgarh in an alleged exchange of fire near Kintukuru village of Rampachodavaram mandal on June 18, 2025.
The Human Rights Forum (HRF) is a citizens’ forum established with the objective of working for the protection of Constitutionally guaranteed/internationally recognised rights of the people. We are concerned with ensuring, among other things, that the agencies of the State, like the police, adhere to the law in the discharge of their duties. We believe that citizens must be tried and punished, if found guilty, only in accordance with a procedure laid down by the law of the land and no one can be subjected to extra-judicial execution by the State. That would be contrary to Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution. We, therefore, place before you the following:
At the very outset, we take strong exception to an assertion made in your August 13, 2025 Press release informing the public about this
Magisterial inquiry. It is stated in the release that three Maoists had died in an exchange of fire between the police and the Maoists on the outskirts of Kintukuru village on June 18 this year. On what basis can the incident be described as “police encounter that occurred on 18-06-2025…” without any manner of enquiry having been conducted so far by the government to determine the circumstances of their demise. In all such cases, the police routinely behave as a judge in their own case and put out a narrative designed to absolve and exonerate themselves.
Your description in the Press release is a case of uncritically reproducing the police version of the events as the truth, which is that the three Maoists had died in an encounter with the security forces. The HRF rejects this as false. It is our contention that the three Maoists did not die in an exchange of fire but were gunned down in one-sided firing by the security forces. That you did not see fit to prefix the words ‘encounter’ with the word ‘alleged’ or ‘said’ in your Press release is a serious omission to which we strongly object.
Following media reports of the alleged encounter, a three-member fact-finding team of the HRF on July 18, 2025 visited the Rampachodavaram Agency area where the deaths occurred in the alleged encounter. We spoke with Adivasis of several villages in the Vemulakonda and Akuru panchayats as well as residents of Kintukuru, a remote habitation. The version of the police that a combing party of Greyhounds personnel were fired upon by the Maoists and the retaliatory fire in self-defence resulted in the death of three Maoists is a patent fabrication.
The three Maoists were ambushed and executed in a burst of one-sided firing by the Greyhounds in the early morning of June 18. The Maoists had been encamped deep in the forest area at a location about 3.5 km to the West of Kintukuru village. The camp is at a place referred locally as ‘Oota mamidi’ a perennial spring abutting a mango tree. Just behind it is a rivulet that flows East to merge with the Pamuleru vaagu. The area is part of the Kondamodalu Reserve Forest and is located in the Papikonda National Park. The three Maoists were camped at that spot for over two weeks.
A large contingent of Greyhounds went via Kintukuru (Akuru panchayat) past midnight of June 17. They evidently had precise detail of the camp location which they approached from the South and East. The Greyhounds opened fire at daybreak, killing all three Maoists. There was no exchange of fire – no crossfire – only a targeted execution. The Greyhounds could have easily apprehended the three alive but they chose to kill them instead.
The three bodies were taken to the Rampachodavaram Area Hospital the same evening, but the post-mortem was deliberately delayed until the next day. Relatives were forced to wait, plead, and it was only after sustained media pressure that they ultimately received decomposed bodies late on the night of June 19. By the time they took them home, the bodies were infested with worms.
As you are aware, an encounter by definition means an exchange of fire. At the conclusion of every alleged encounter, the police officer in charge of the police party that has participated in the alleged encounter gives a complaint in the local police station, which is registered as a crime under Section 109 of theBharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023(read with other appropriate sections). This means that the crime is registered as one of attempt to murder by the now deceased as a consequence of which the police, according to the complaint, had to resort to firing in self-defence causing death.
It is the HRF’s considered view that the instant case must be registered as two crimes, that is under Section 109 and Section 103 of the BNS respectively in the Rampachodavaram police station under which jurisdiction the crime has been committed. The first is a crime of Attempt to Murder by the now deceased and the other a crime of Culpable Homicide Amounting to Murder by the police purportedly in self-defence. Therefore, the concerned police personnel have to be put on trial. The burden of establishing a preponderance of probabilities in favour of the exception relating to self-defence to a competent court rests upon the police personnel who have fired causing death. Importantly, the case must be investigated by an agency completely independent of the State police.
This lawful procedure has not been followed by the law enforcing authorities in the instant case. We reiterate that this must be done without further delay. We also urge the government, in due course, to provide copy of the magisterial inquiry report to family members of the three deceased. The report must also be made available to the public in the best interests of transparency and accountability and to uphold public trust in the justice system.
VS Krishna
HRF AP&TG Coordination Committee member
25.08.2025
Rampachodavaram