Case Shouldn’t Be Thrown Out On Mere Technicalities: Supreme Court Gives Opportunity Of Hearing To Former Chhattisgarh CM’s Son In NCP Leader’s Murder Case
The Supreme Court reiterated that the right conferred upon a victim to prefer an Appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 of CrPC arises only in respect of acquittal orders passed after December 31, 2009.
Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Sandeep Mehta, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has granted an opportunity of hearing to Amit Aishwarya Jogi, son of Ajit Jogi-former Chief Minister (CM) of Chhattisgarh in a case involving murder of Ramavatar Jaggi, leader of the National Congress Party (NCP).
A batch of Criminal Appeals were preferred before the Court by the State, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), and the Complainant, assailing the final Order of the Chhattisgarh High Court’s Division Bench.
The three-Judge Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol, and Justice Sandeep Mehta remarked, “… we are of the opinion that the High Court ought to have adopted a more liberal and pragmatic approach in dealing with CBI’s application seeking condonation of delay and should have examined application seeking leave to appeal applicable on its merits. … We may hasten to add that we are not giving any imprimatur to the explanation offered by the CBI in its application for condonation of delay, but our objective is to ensure that the case involving such grave allegations should not be thrown out on mere technicalities.”
The Bench reiterated that the right conferred upon a victim to prefer an Appeal against an Order of acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) arises only in respect of Orders of acquittal passed after December 31, 2009.
Facts of the Case
The matters were placed before the three-Judge Bench in terms of the Order wherein a Bench of two Judges took note of the submission of the counsel representing the State expressing a doubt on the correctness of the view taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Lalu Prasad Yadav and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Anr. (2010). Earlier, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions were filed before the High Court against the common Judgment of the Special Judge (Atrocities), Raipur.
The Trial Court while convicting 28 accused persons, had acquitted the Respondent-accused (Amit Jogi). The cases were registered pursuant to an incident of violence and murder of INC leader Ramavatar Jaggi (deceased), which took place within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Moudhapara, District Raipur on June 4, 2003. The accused’s father was the serving CM of Chhattisgarh at the time of the incident.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, observed, “The core question which requires adjudication in these matters is whether the three-Judge Bench judgment in the case of Lalu Prasad Yadav and Anr. (supra) lays down the correct proposition of law, or whether the same requires reference to, and resolution by a larger bench.”
The Court added that it sees no reason to take a different view, however, there is one aspect of the controversy which may require a deeper probe in a suitable case.
“However, we do not see any reason to enter into the controversy nor are we persuaded to take a different view for the reason that in the case of Lalu Prasad Yadav and Anr. (supra), the CBI also supported the view taken by the High Court and chose not to file an appeal questioning the acquittal of the accused by the trial Court. However, in the present case, the distinguishing feature is that the CBI has also filed an application seeking leave to appeal against acquittal of the respondent-Amit Jogi”, it said.
The Court was of the view that the question as to whether the State Government can independently file an Appeal against acquittal of the accused in a case which was initially registered by the local police and later tried on the chargesheet filed by the CBI, may be examined and deliberated in a suitable case involving the following situations –
(a) the complaint was lodged by the State Government or its officers;
(b) investigation was partly done by State Police;
(c) prosecution was commenced at the instance of the State Government;
(d) the State Government has a stake in the criminal proceedings; and
(e) the jurisdiction of the CBI had been invoked at the instance of the State Government.
The Court noted that ends of justice will be served by condoning the delay occasioned in filing of the application seeking leave to Appeal by the CBI and requiring the High Court to consider the said application filed by the CBI, on its own merits and such a course of action would ensure that the challenge to the Judgment of acquittal would be examined on merits by the High Court instead of a technical rejection.
“We also do not find any fault in the view taken by the High Court on the aspect of maintainability of the de-facto-complainant’s application filed under proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC9. Needless to say, that the judgment and order of acquittal in this case was rendered on 31st May, 2007, whereas, the enabling provision i.e., proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, which gives a substantive right to the victim to file an appeal against judgment and order of acquittal came into effect from 31st December, 2009”, it further said.
The Court also noted that on the date of the Judgment and Order of acquittal i.e., May 31, 2007, there was no provision in the statute book which permitted the de-facto-complainant to challenge the Judgment and Order of acquittal rendered by the Trial Court by approaching the High Court through a victim’s Appeal.
“At the same time, we also make it clear that we are not commenting on the merits of the case. It shall be open to the High Court to examine the merits of the matter while considering the CBI’s prayer for grant of leave to appeal, uninfluenced by any observation made in this order”, it clarified.
Conclusion
The Court condoned the delay occasioned in filing the application for grant of leave to Appeal by the CBI against the Judgment and Order of acquittal of the Respondent-accused.
“The matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration of the application for grant of leave to appeal filed by the CBI, on merits. we consider it expedient, in the interest of justice, to permit the respondent-Amit Jogi (acquitted accused) an opportunity of hearing in the application seeking leave to appeal. The de-facto-complainant as well as the State of Chhattisgarh shall also be impleaded as parties in the CBI’s application seeking leave to appeal and would be entitled to advance their respective submissions before the High Court”, it directed and concluded.
Accordingly, the Apex Court dismissed the State and Complainant’s Appeal, and allowed that of the CBI.
Cause Title- State of Chhattisgarh v. Amit Aishwarya Jogi (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1285)
Appearance:
Senior Advocate Sonia Mathur, DAG Ravi Sharma, AORs Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Prashant Singh, Kanchan Kaur Dhodi, P. N. Puri, Sumeer Sodhi, Advocates Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Sushil Kumar Dubey, Jagdish Chandra, Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Prerna Dhall, Ambuj Swaroop, Rajnandini Kumari, Kapil Katre, Minakshi Pandey, Rahul Sharma, Praphull Kumar, and Faizan Shouk.
