"Principal Architect, Ultimate Beneficiary": Chhattisgarh High Court Convicts Ex-CM Ajit Jogi's Son In NCP Leader’s Murder Case

The Court was hearing an acquittal appeal filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) along with connected revision petitions arising from the murder of a political leader, where the trial court had acquitted Amit Jogi while convicting several co-accused.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Arvind Kumar Verma observed: “The material on record, when appreciated holistically, points towards his position not merely as a passive or incidental beneficiary, but as the principal architect and driving force behind the conspiracy and the ultimate beneficiary, …the scale of planning, the coordination among multiple actors, and the systemic shielding of the perpetrators collectively indicate that such an operation required a commanding figure exercising control and instilling confidence among the co-conspirators attributes that are clearly attributable to Amit Jogi”.

“Consequently, his involvement stands on a higher footing than that of the other accused, and his acquittal, in the face of such compelling circumstances, is rendered wholly unsustainable and contrary to the weight of evidence on record”, the Bench added.

Advocate Vaibhav A. Goverdhan appeared for the CBI, while Advocate Vikas Walia appeared for the accused.

Background

The case arose from the murder of a political functionary belonging to the NCP who was shot while travelling in his vehicle. Initially, the State Police registered an FIR and attributed the crime to a group of individuals allegedly acting with a motive of robbery.

Subsequently, the investigation was transferred to the CBI, which presented an entirely different narrative. According to the CBI, the murder was politically motivated and carried out pursuant to a larger conspiracy involving several accused persons, including Amit Jogi, to eliminate a political rival ahead of a major rally.

The prosecution alleged that the conspiracy involved multiple meetings, coordination among conspirators, and deliberate manipulation of the investigation through false implication of innocent persons. The trial court convicted several accused persons for murder and conspiracy, but acquitted Amit Jogi.

The CBI and the complainant challenged this acquittal, contending that the same evidence relied upon to convict the co-accused had been unjustifiably discarded in respect of Amit Jogi.

Court’s Observation

The High Court undertook a comprehensive re-appreciation of the evidence, particularly focusing on the principles governing criminal conspiracy and appellate interference in acquittal.

The Court noted that the prosecution's case was based on a chain of circumstantial evidence, including witness testimonies, the conduct of the accused, meetings preceding the incident, and subsequent attempts to derail the investigation.

Emphasizing the nature of conspiracy, the Court observed that “the material on record, when appreciated holistically, points towards his position not attributed a more active, decisive, or supervisory role in the commission of the crime, … therefore, if the evidence is found sufficient to establish the guilt of the co-accused, who are alleged to have acted in furtherance of a common intention or conspiracy, the same evidentiary foundation would, a fortiori, apply with greater force to the principal accused..”

The Court examined the testimony of key witnesses, particularly those who spoke about meetings held before the incident, where the plan to eliminate the deceased was allegedly discussed. It noted that the evidence demonstrated the existence of coordinated planning and assignment of roles among the accused.

The Bench further took into account the conduct of the accused before and after the crime, including attempts to influence witnesses, manipulate evidence, and stage a false investigation. It held that such conduct was relevant under the Evidence Act and reinforced the prosecution's case.

“The conduct of the learned Counsel goes to show that he has been made to appear/stand in these cases only to seek adjournment and stall the proceedings of these cases, by any means for the reasons best known to the accused”, the Bench remarked.

The Court also scrutinised the trial court’s reasoning and found that it had adopted an inconsistent approach by relying on the same body of evidence to convict the co-accused while discarding it in respect of Amit Jogi without sufficient justification.

Rejecting the trial court’s approach, the High Court held: “When the prosecution case against all the accused persons is founded upon a common, cogent, and interlinked body of evidence, such evidence must be assessed uniformly, unless there exist clear and discernible grounds for differentiation. Where the same set of witnesses, documentary materials, and surrounding circumstances have been relied upon to sustain the conviction of the co-accused, the acquittal of the principal or main accused, whose role is alleged to be central to the commission of the offence, calls for strict judicial scrutiny”, the Bench stressed.

The Court addressed the inconsistency in the trial court’s approach in appreciating evidence vis-à-vis different accused. It held that “if the evidence is found sufficient to establish the guilt of the co-accused, who are alleged to have acted in furtherance of a common intention or conspiracy, the same evidentiary foundation would, a fortiori, apply with greater force to the principal accused.”

The Court further held that the role attributed to Amit Jogi was not peripheral but central to the conspiracy, observing that the evidence indicated his involvement from the stage of planning to execution through intermediaries.

“It is amply clear that Amit Jogi was the mastermind of the entire conspiracy and he was also having the commanding position being the son of the then Chief Minister, …he was an influential person to such an extent that he could manage Police authorities to arrange for persons who could forge themselves as the assailants, …the transaction of funds, evidence of frequent meetings in Batra House, Hotel Green Park and CM House of the accused persons alongwith Amit Jogi clearly demonstrates that he was aware of all the activities right from the very beginning and the entire offence was orchestrated as per the directions of Amit Jogi”, the Bench remarked.

While stating that “the acquittal of the main accused, despite the conviction of co-accused on identical evidence, cannot be sustained unless it is supported by compelling reasons demonstrating that his case stands on a clearly different and distinguishable footing”, the High Court concluded that “that the judgment passed by the learned trial Judge acquitting the accused-Amit Jogi is palpably illegal, wrong, perverse, contrary to the evidence available on record and without any concrete basis”.

Conclusion

The High Court allowed the acquittal appeal filed by the CBI and set aside the acquittal of Amit Jogi, holding him guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along with a fine of ₹1,000, and in default of payment of the fine, to undergo an additional six months of rigorous imprisonment.

The Court also disposed of the revision petition filed by the complainant, while holding that the connected revision petition had become infructuous in view of the earlier affirmation of conviction of the other accused. All pending applications were accordingly disposed of.

Noting that the accused was on bail, the Court directed that his bail bonds shall remain operative for a period of three weeks, within which he shall surrender before the concerned trial court, failing which coercive steps shall be taken to take him into custody for serving the sentence.

The Registry was directed to communicate the judgment to the accused, informing him of his right to challenge the same before the Supreme Court. Further, the Registrar (Judicial) was directed to transmit a certified copy of the judgment along with the trial court record to the concerned trial court for necessary action.

Cause Title: Central Bureau of Investigation v. Amit Jogi & Ors (Neutral Citation: 2026:CGHC:15302-DB)

Appearances

Appellant: Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Advocate

Respondents: Dr Sourabh Kumar Pandey, Deputy Advocate General; Advocates Shri Singh, Raj Bahadur Singh, Arunima Nair, Vikas Walia, Samrath Singh Marhas, Akash Verma

Click here to read/download Judgment