Supreme Court Puts Chhattisgarh HC Conviction on Hold Amid Pending Criminal Appeal Challenge

Background of the Dispute

The proceedings in Amit Jogi Vs Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (Supreme Court of India) arise out of a long-running criminal litigation concerning allegations of criminal conspiracy and murder, initially culminating in an acquittal and later in a conviction by the High Court of Chhattisgarh.

The controversy primarily involves:

  • An acquittal order dated 31.05.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur,
  • A subsequent attempt to challenge that acquittal by way of appeals and applications under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and
  • Later High Court orders in CRMP No. 495 of 2011 and ACQA No. 66 of 2026, which were ultimately brought under scrutiny before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has intervened at multiple stages, most recently granting interim protection to the appellant by staying the effect of the High Court’s orders which had allowed a delayed appeal and later resulted in conviction under Section 302 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Origins: Acquittal and Initial Challenge

Trial Court Decision of 31.05.2007

The criminal case stems from serious charges, including:

  • Alleged criminal conspiracy; and
  • The commission of murder, attracting the application of Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC.

In the trial conducted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, several accused persons were involved. The trial court:

  • Convicted a number of co-accused for grave offences; yet
  • Acquitted the present respondent (now appellant before the Supreme Court), granting him the benefit of doubt.

The acquittal order dated 31.05.2007 became the central focus of subsequent appellate litigation.

Petition under Section 378(3) CrPC

A petition was later filed invoking Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking leave to appeal against the acquittal.

Key contentions raised included:

  • There was adequate material on record to support a finding of guilt,
  • The evidence showed the existence of a criminal conspiracy connected with the murder, and
  • The benefit of doubt extended by the trial court was alleged to be misapplied and unsustainable in light of the record.

Over time, three different appellants approached superior courts:

  1. The State of Chhattisgarh,
  2. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), and
  3. The de facto complainant (victim/complainant),

each seeking to overturn the trial court's acquittal in different ways.

Supreme Court’s Earlier Judgment Dated 06.11.2025

Scope of Section 378 CrPC in CBI-Investigated Cases

In its detailed judgment dated 06.11.2025, the Supreme Court examined the proper authority to file an appeal against acquittal in cases where investigation has been conducted by a central agency such as the CBI.

The Court reaffirmed that:

  • In matters investigated by the CBI, the exclusive authority to file an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 CrPC vests in the Central Government.
  • Consequently, the State Government has no jurisdiction to maintain an appeal against acquittal in such CBI-investigated cases.

On this basis, the appeal pursued by the State of Chhattisgarh was held to be not maintainable and was dismissed.

Victim’s Right to Appeal under Proviso to Section 372 CrPC

The Supreme Court also examined whether the de facto complainant could rely on the proviso to Section 372 CrPC to file an appeal as a victim.

The Court clarified:

  • The proviso to Section 372 CrPC conferring a victim’s right to appeal is prospective in nature.
  • This right applies only to orders of acquittal passed after 31.12.2009.
  • As the impugned acquittal order in the present matter was issued on 31.05.2007, the complainant did not possess a statutory right to appeal at that time.

On this reasoning, the appeal filed by the de facto complainant was dismissed as not maintainable.

CBI’s Delayed Application for Leave to Appeal

One of the central issues before the Supreme Court was the CBI’s application for leave to appeal, which had been filed with a delay of 1373 days.

Ordinarily, such a significant delay can be fatal to appellate proceedings. However, the Supreme Court adopted a pragmatic, justice-oriented approach, observing: