Chattisgarh High Court
Cbi – Central Bureau Of Investigation vs Amit Jogi on 2 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:15302-DB
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
ACQA No. 66 of 2026
CBI - Central Bureau of Investigation Office of SP CBI- SCR III- 5-B CBI
Headquarters 3rd Floor, C.G.O Complex Lodhi Road, New Delhi
--- Appellant
versus
1 - Amit Jogi S/o Shri Ajit Jogi Aged About 29 Years R/o 03 Motilal Nehru
Marg, New Delhi, Present- Anugraha, Civil Line, Raipur, C.G.
2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Raipur, C.G.
3 - Satish Jaggi S/o Late Ram Avtar Jaggi Aged About 50 Years Present R/o
A1 -508, Shrijan Heights Shrishti Plazo Road, Near Metro Hexa Square, Avanti
Vihar, Telibandha, Kachna, Raipur (C.G.) -492007
--- Respondent(s)
For Appellant / CBI : Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Advocate.
For Respondent No. 1/Accused : Mr. Vikas Walia, Advocate.
For Respondent No. 2/State : Dr. Sourabh Kumar Pandey, Deputy
Advocate General
For Respondent No. 3/Complainant : Mr. Shri Singh, Mr. Raj Bahadur Singh and
Ms. Arunima Nair, Advocates.
2
CRR No. 434 of 2007
Satish Jaggi, S/o Late Ram Avtar Jaggi, Aged About 30 Years R/o Nehar
Para, Behind Hira Soap Building, Raipur (C.G.)
---Applicant
Versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh. Through Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Block
No.03, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. And Camp at NMDC Rest
House, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Amit Ashwarya Jogi, S/o Shri Ajit Jogi, Aged About 28 Years R/o 03,
Mohtilal Nehru Marg, New Delhi At Present Anugraha, Civi Lines, Raipur
(C.G.)
--- Respondent(s)
For Applicant/Complainant : Mr. Shri Singh, Mr. Raj Bahadur Singh
and Ms. Arunima Nair, Advocates.
For Respondent No. 1/State : Dr. Sourabh Kumar Pandey, Deputy
Advocate General
For Respondent No. 2/ Accused : Mr. Vikas Walia, Advocate.
CRR No. 232 of 2008
Satish Jaggi S/o Late Ram Avtar Jaggi Aged About 30 Years R/o Nehar Para,
Behind Hira Soap Building, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---Applicant
Versus
3
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Block
No.03, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. And Camp at NMDC Rest
House, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Chiman Singh S/o Late Hom Singh Aged About 42 Years R/o Jagi Road,
Village Mauri, Thana Jagi Road, District Mauri Gaon, (Assam) Presently
Through Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3 - Yahya Dhebar S/o Jikar Bhai Dhebar Aged About 34 Years Sakin
Baijnathpara, Thana City Kotwali, Presently Through Superintendent, Central
Jail, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
4 - Abhay Goel S/o Rajeshwar Sharan Goel Aged About 31 Years R/o B-34,
Tagor Nagar, Thana Tikrapara, District Raipur, Presently Through
Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
5 - Feroze Siddiki S/o Kamaluddin Siddiki Aged About 35 Years R/o Clauster
10, Quarter No. 14, Kashiram Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Presently
Through Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
6 - Shivender Singh Parihar S/o Kalyan Singh Parihar Aged About 24 Years
R/o Nandini Road, Near Of Shiv Mandir, Chawni, District Durg, Chhattisgarh,
Presently Through Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
7 - Deleted (Vikram Sharma) Hon'ble Court Order Dated 01.04.2026
8 - Vinod Singh Rathore S/o Shayamveer Singh Rathore Aged About 28 Years
R/o L.I.G. 176, Darpan Colony, Gwaliar, Thana Murar, District Gwalior (M.P.),
Presently Through Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
9 - Rakesh Kumar Sharma S/o Totaram Sharma Aged About 37 Years R/o 36
I.D.P.L., Bapugram Rishikesh, Thana Rishikesh, District Rishikesh,
(Uttaranchal), Presently Through Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.
4
10 - Ashok Singh Bhadoria S/o Narendra Singh Bhadoria Aged About 27
Years R/o Bhind, Thana Dehat, District Bhind, (M.P.), Presently Through
Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
11 - Sanjay Singh Khuswaha S/o Keshawchand Khuswaha Aged About 22
Years R/o Ashok Nagar, Bhind, Thana, Dehat (Bhind), District Bhind, (M.P.),
Presently Through Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur, Chhattisgarh
12 - Raju Bhadoria S/o Jagdhish Singh Aged About 25 Years R/o Baruli Road,
Sarojani Nagar, Thana Dehat (Kotwali), District Bhind (M.P.), Presently
Through Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur, Chhattisgarh
13 - Ravinder Singh Alias Ravi Singh S/o Bhagwan Singh Aged About 25
Years R/o Durganagar, Lahar Road, Thana Dehat, District Bhind, (M.P.),
Presently Through Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
14 - Narsi Sharma S/o Sitaram Sharma Aged About 22 Years R/o Bypass
Road Bhind, Thana Bhind (M.P.), Presently Through Superintendent, Central
Jail, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
15 - Satyender Singh S/o Lalsingh Alias Dorilal Aged About 23 Years R/o
Ashok Nagar, Jamna Road, Thana Dehat, Bhind, District Bhind (M.P.),
Presently Through Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
16 - Vivek Singh S/o Kanhai Singh Aged About 25 Years R/o Dharm Nagar,
Bypass Road, Bhind, Thana Bhind, District Bhind (M.P.), Presently Through
Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
17 - Lalla Bhadoria Alias Dharmendra Singh S/o Mather Singh Aged About 24
Years R/o Kissupura, Thana Surpura, District Bhind, (M.P.), Presently Through
Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
5
18 - Sunil Gupta S/o Babulal Gupta Aged About 27 Years R/o Meera Colony,
Behind Of Jail, Thana City Kotwali, Bhind, District Bhind, (M.P.), Presently
Through Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
19 - Anil Pachoria S/o Radheshayam Pachoria Aged About 26 Years R/o
Meera Colony, Behind Of Jail, Thana City Kotwali, District Bhind (M.P.),
Presently Through Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
20 - Harish Chandra S/o Bhunga Ram Sharma Aged About 28 Years R/o
Gram Jamna, Thana Dehat, Bhind, District Bhind (M.P.), Presently Through
Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
21 - Rakesh Chandra Trivedi S/o Late R. L. Trivedi Aged About 40 Years R/o
Near City Kotwali, Raipur, Thana City Kotwali, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
22 - V. K. Pandey S/o Late N. P. Pandey Aged About 55 Years R/o Near City
Kotwali, Raipur, Thana City Kotwali, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
23 - Amrik Singh Gill S/o Sadhu Singh Gill Aged About 52 Years R/o
Tatibandh, Udya Society, Thana Amanaka, Raipur, District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.
24 - Suryakant Tiwari S/o Dilipram Tiwari Aged About 48 Years R/o Purani
Basti, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
25 - Avinash @ Lallan S/o Ranjit Singh @ Rambhagat Singh Aged About 34
Years R/o Mauperasin, Thana Minajpur, District Ajamgarh (U.P.)
26 - Jamwant @ Babu S/o Jaimangal Prasad Aged About 20 Years R/o
Kanjha, Thana Manipur, District Mahu (U.P.)
27 - Shyamsunder @ Anand Sharma S/o Shahzada Sharma Aged About 22
Years R/o Kanjha, Thana Manipur, District Mahu (U.P.)
6
28 - Vinod Singh @ Badal S/o Jitendra Singh Aged About 21 Years R/o Post
Kanjha, Gram Girjapur, Thana Ranipur, District Mahu (U.P.)
29 - Vishwanath @ Rajbhar S/o Jaishree Prasad Rajbhar Aged About 33
Years R/o Dindayal Upadhya Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondent(s)
(Cause Title Taken from Case Information System)
For Applicant/Complainant : Mr. Shri Singh, Mr. Raj Bahadur Singh and Ms.
Arunima Nair, Advocates.
For Respondent No. 1/State : Dr. Sourabh Kumar Pande, Deputy Advocate
General
For Respondents No. 21, 22 : Mr. Samrath Singh Marhas and Mr. Akash
and 23 Verma, Advocates holding the brief of Mr.
R.S.Marhas, Advocate.
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
02/04/2026
1. Heard Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, learned Counsel appearing for the
appellant-Central Bureau of Investigation (for short, the CBI), Dr.
Sourabh Kumar Pande, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State,
Mr. Shri Singh assisted by Mr. Raj Bahadur Singh and Ms. Arunima
Nair, learned Counsel for the complainant-Satish Jaggi, Mr. Vikas Walia,
learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/accused-Amit Jogi as
well as Mr. Samrath Singh Marhas and Mr. Akash Verma, Advocates
holding the brief of Mr. R.S.Marhas, Advocate, learned Counsel
appearing for the accused-Rakesh Chandra Trivedi, V.K.Pandey and
Amrik Singh Gill.
7
2. Since all three cases, namely ACQA No. 66/2026, CRR No. 434/2007,
and CRR No. 232/2008, arise out of the judgment dated 31.05.2007
passed in Sessions Trial No. 329/2005 by the learned Special Judge
(Atrocities), Raipur, they are being heard together and are being
disposed of by this common judgment.
3. In ACQA No. 66/2026, the appellant-CBI has prayed for the following
relief(s):
"i) call for and examine the Trial Court record from the Court
of the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, Raipur, in Sessions Trial
No. 329/2005 entitled 'CBI v. Amit Jogi & Ors.' arising out of
RC 1/S/04/SCB/DLI dated 22.01.2004;
ii) to amalgamate this criminal appeal with the revision
petition of complainant in order to avoid conflict of decision
as in both proceeding the issues are same and the
impugning of same order/judgment;
iii) pass an order setting aside Judgment and Final Order
dated 31.05.2007 passed by the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge,
Raipur, in Sessions Trial No. 329/2005 entitled 'CBI v. Amit
Jogi & Ors.' arising out of RC /S/04/SCBI/DLI dated
22.01.2004 on the point of acquittal of Accused No.1, Amit
Jogi and consequently convict the Respondent No.1/Amit
Jogi for the offence of conspiracy to murder Ram Avtar Jaggi
and sentence him similarly to the other convicts of
conspiracy to the offence of the murder of Ram Avtar Jaggi.
iv) pass any other order this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in
the interest of justice."
4. In CRR No. 434/2007, the applicant/complainant-Satish Jaggi has
prayed for the following relief(s):
"i) call for and examine the Trial Court record from the Court
of the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, Raipur, in Sessions Trial
No. 329/2005 entitled 'CBI v. Amit Jogi & Ors.' arising out of
RC No. 1/S/04/SCBI/DLI dated 22.01.2004;
8
ii) pass an order setting aside Judgment and Final Order
dated 31.05.2007 passed by the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge,
Raipur, in Sessions Trial No. 329/2005 entitled 'CBI v. Amit
Jogi & Ors' arising out of RC No. 1/S/04/SCBI/DLI dated
22.01.2004 on the point of acquittal of Accused No. 1, Amit
Jogi;
iii) pass any other order this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in
the interest of justice."
5. In CRR No. 232/2008, the applicant/complainant-Satish Jaggi has
prayed for the following relief(s):
"i) call for and examine the Trial Court record from the Court
of the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, Raipur, in Sessions Trial
No. 329/2005 entitled 'CBI v. Amit Jogi & Ors' arising out of
RC No.1/S/04/SCBI/DLI dated 22.01.2004
ii) pass an order setting aside Judgment and Final Order
dated 31.05.2007 passed by the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge,
Raipur, in Sessions Trial No. 329/2005 entitled 'CBI v. Amit
Jogi & Ors.' arising dated out of RC No. 1/S/04/SCBI/DLI
22.01 2004 on the point of sentencing of Respondents No.
2 to 29,
iii) enhance the sentence of Respondent No. 2 to 5,
convicted under Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC,
from life imprisonment to death;
iv) enhance the sentence of Respondent No. 6 to 20,
convicted under Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC,
from life imprisonment to death;
v) enhance the sentence of Respondent No. 20 to 24,
convicted under Section 193 IPC from five years rigorous
imprisonment to seven years rigorous imprisonment;
vi) enhance the sentence of Respondent No. 20 to 24.
convicted under Section 218 IPC from two years rigorous
imprisonment to three years rigorous imprisonment
vii) enhance the sentence of Respondent No. 24 to 29,
convicted under Section 193 IPC from five years rigorous
9
imprisonment to seven years rigorous imprisonment;
viii) pass any other order this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in
the interest of justice."
6. The acquittal appeal, being ACQA No. 66/2026 has been preferred by
the appellant-CBI challenging the order of the learned trial Court
whereby accused Amit Aishwarya Jogi was acquitted of the charges
framed under Sections 120-B(1), 302/34, and 427/34 of the Indian
Penal Code (for short, the IPC). CRR No. 434/2007 has been filed by the
complainant/applicant challenging the said acquittal of accused Amit
Jogi @ Amit Aishwarya Jogi. Additionally, CRR No. 232/2008 has been
filed by the complainant/applicant seeking enhancement of the
sentences awarded to the accused/convicts by the learned trial Court.
7. The prosecution case, in brief, is that one Ram Avtar Jaggi @ Taru
Jaggi (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), a leader of the
Nationalist Congress Party (for short, the NCP), was shot at about 23:40
hours on 04.06.2003 while travelling in his car bearing registration No.
CG-04-B-2111. In connection with the incident, a First Information
Report (for short, the FIR) was initially lodged at Police Station
Moudhapara, Raipur, vide Crime No. 104/2003, under Sections 447 and
307 of the IPC at the instance of V.K. Pandey, the Station House Officer.
The injured was taken to the hospital, where he subsequently
succumbed to his injuries. On 05.06.2003 at about 2:15 a.m., a second
FIR bearing Crime No. 105/2003 was registered for the same incident
under Section 302 IPC at the instance of the complainant-Satish Jaggi
(PW-41), son of the deceased. During the initial investigation conducted
by the State Police, five accused persons, namely Vinod Singh @ Badal,
Avinash Singh @ Lallan, Jambwant Kashyap, Shyam Sunder @ Anand
Sharma, and Vishwanath Rajbhar, were arrested and a charge-sheet
10
was filed against them. The case was committed to the Court of
Sessions and registered as Sessions Trial No. 334/2003. Subsequently,
an application under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. was moved by the Public
Prosecutor seeking further investigation, which was allowed. Thereafter,
on the directions of the State Government, the matter was handed over
to the CBI, which registered Crime No. RC-1/5/2004 dated 22.01.2004
for offences under Sections 120-B, 302, and 427 IPC, along with
Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act. Upon completion of its investigation, the
CBI filed a supplementary charge-sheet against 31 accused persons,
including the five already charge-sheeted in Sessions Trial No.
334/2003. This case was also committed to the Sessions Court and
registered as Sessions Trial No. 329/2005. In Sessions Trial No.
334/2003, based on the State Police investigation, the prosecution
alleged that the five accused persons had murdered the deceased with
the motive of robbery. However, in Sessions Trial No. 329/2005, based
on the CBI investigation, the prosecution put forth an entirely different
case, alleging that the deceased was murdered for political reasons. It
was alleged that the deceased was organizing a major NCP rally in
Raipur on 10.06.2003, which was expected to draw a large crowd and
was perceived as a political threat to the then Chief Minister, Ajit Jogi @
Ajit Pramod Kumar Jogi and his son Amit Jogi (since acquitted).
According to the CBI, the murder was carried out by accused Chiman
Singh pursuant to a criminal conspiracy involving Amit Jogi, Yahya
Dhebar, Abhay Goel, and Feroz Sidhique. The CBI further alleged the
involvement of several other accused persons, namely Vikram Sharma,
Vinod Singh Rathore, Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Ashok Kumar Bhadoriya,
Sanjay Singh @ Chunnu, Raju Bhadauriya, Ravindra Singh @ Ravi
Singh, Narsi Sharma, Satyendra Singh, Vivek Singh, Lalla Bhadauriya,
11
Sunil Gupta, Anil Pachauri, Harish Chandra, and Shivendra Singh
Parihar, in the commission of the offence. It was also the prosecution's
case that the five accused persons in Sessions Trial No. 334/2003 were
in fact imposters, who had been falsely implicated by the real
perpetrators with the assistance of certain police officials who conducted
a sham investigation and filed a fabricated charge-sheet. These
imposters, the concerned police officials, and those involved in arranging
them were arrayed as accused Nos. 21 to 29 in the CBI case, i.e.,
Sessions Trial No. 329/2005.
8. The learned trial Judge, upon hearing the parties and considering the
material available on record, acquitted accused Amit Jogi @ Amit
Aishwarya Jogi, and convicted and sentenced the remaining accused
persons as follows:
Accused-Chiman Singh, Yahya Dhebar, Abhay Goyal, Feroz Sidhiquie
302 of the IPC : Life imprisonment with fine of Rs.
1000/-. In default of payment of fine,
6 moths rigorous imprisonment
more.
120-B of the IPC : Life imprisonment with fine of Rs.
1000/-. In default of payment of fine,
6 moths rigorous imprisonment
more.
Accused-Shivendra Singh Parihar, Vinod Singh Rathore, Rakesh Kumar,
Ashok Singh Bhadauriya, Sanjay Singh Kushwaha, Raju Bhadauriya,
Ravindra Singh, Narsi Sharma, Satyendra Singh, Vivek Singh,
Lalla Bhadauriya, Sunil Gupta, Anil Pachauri, Harishchandra
302 read with Section 34 IPC R.I. for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-. In
default of payment of fine, RI for 6
months.
427 of IPC : One year R.I.
Accused-Suryakant Tiwari, Jambwant, Shyam Sundar, Vinod Singh and
Vishwanath Rajbhar and Avinash @ Lallan
120-B IPC : 5 years R.I. with fine of Rs. 1000/-.
12
In default of payment of fine, 3
months R.I. more.
193 IPC : 5 years R.I. with fine of Rs. 1000/-.
In default of payment of fine, 3
months R.I. more.
Accused-Rakesh Chandra Trivedi, V.K.Pandey, Amrik Singh Gill
120-B IPC : 5 years R.I. with fine of Rs. 1000/-.
In default of payment of fine, 3
months R.I. more.
193 IPC : 5 years R.I. with fine of Rs. 1000/-.
In default of payment of fine, 3
months R.I. more.
218 IPC : 2 years R.I.
All the sentences were to run concurrently.
9. Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-
CBI submits that the learned trial Court has committed grave error of law
by acquitting the accused-Amit Jogi @ Amit Aishwarya Jogi, as on the
same set of evidence which has been believed and relied by the learned
trial Judge to convict the other accused, has disbelieved the same with
respect to the accused-Amit Jogi. There are ample evidence on record
to show that the accused-Amit Jogi was actively involved in hatching of
the conspiracy and he was the key person on whose command and
direction, the entire offence was committed.
10. It is next submitted that the learned trial Court has caused the
miscarriage of justice by acquitting main conspirator-Amit Jogi, in spite
of overwhelming evidence against him. The learned trial Court failed to
appreciate the evidence placed on record by the prosecution, inasmuch
as the learned trial Court has acquitted the accused-respondent No. 1
on the basis of assumptions, surmises and guesswork without any legal
basis and by appreciating the evidence perversely. It was without any
basis implied that the accused-Amit Jogi and and his father were
13
named in FIR bearing Crime No. 05/2003 out of political malice,
whereas no evidence to this effect was brought on record before the
learned trial Court. The learned trial Court grossly erred in holding that
there is no evidence to connect the accused-Amit Jogi with accused
Chiman Singh, Yahya Dhebar, Abhay Goel and Firoze Siddiqui.
Acquittal of accused-Amit Jogi in offences where other co-accused
persons were inter alia convicted and sentenced under Section 302 read
with Section 120B IPC has led to a gross miscarriage of justice, in as
much as the prosecution case stands proven on all counts, yet the main
accused, being Amit Jogi, who has been proven guilty beyond
reasonable doubt, has been acquitted on vague and arbitrary grounds,
whereon a speculative and baseless theory. This is a case where the
father of the complainant was killed pursuant to conspiracy hatched
between the accused, some of whom, including Amit Jogi were persons
of high political influence, authority and power and subsequently even
the local police machinery joined in the conspiracy to deflect the
investigation from the actual offenders and to put up a setup of five false
accused to subvert the course of justice in this most heinous crime. Due
to the pressure exerted by the accused persons, including the accused-
Amit Jogi, a number of witnesses had been pressurized by the accused
and were not in a position to depose freely or fairly and therefore were
given up by the prosecution. During the course of trial, the learned trial
Court even recorded the demeanor of witnesses and recorded the fact
that at various places, hostile witnesses responded to queries in cross
examination by accused even before questions were put to them.
Despite the fact that witnesses such as Sidharth Asati (PW-97), Raj
Singh (PW-100), Rohit Prasad (PW-126) and Banke Bihari Chauhan
(PW-128) made statements under Section 164 of the CrPC before
14
Magistrates, and subsequently gave contrary evidence under oath
before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court failed to initiate
proceedings under Section 340 CrPC against these witnesses leading to
a miscarriage of justice. It further erred in holding entries of passport to
be correct entries and upheld the plea of alibi of Rohit Prasad (PW-126),
Michael Williams (DW-9) and Arjun Bhagat (DW-8) in the meeting dated
21.05.2003 held at Hotel Green Park, Raipur, contrary to its earlier order
during the examination of the witness and marking exhibit of passport,
which was subject to the proof by concerned authorities. The learned
trial Court, therefore, failed to appreciate that defence of alibi is a fact to
be proved by cogent primary evidence, which was absent in the trial.
The learned trial Court thereby failed to follow the law in its true
perspective and acquitted the accused in trial. Even when Rohit Prasad
(PW-126) admitted in his evidence on 22.04.2006 that he had stated
about the incident/conspiracy to the Magistrate under section 164
Cr.P.C, but the trial Court wrongly taken into consideration the
afterthought explanation of the said witness that he had made a false
statement before the concerned magistrate which is not tenable in the
eyes of law. While the evidence against accused-Amit Jogi and other
accused/convicted namely Chiman Singh, Yahya Dhebar, Abhay Goyal,
and Feroze Siddiqui were similar and that accused-Amit Jogi had a
strong motive to cause the murder of the deceased, the learned trial
Judge has illegally acquitted accused-respondent No. 1-Amit Jogi,
against whom the circumstantial evidences for the commission of the
offence(s) were much stronger. While holding that accused-Chiman
Singh, Yahya Dhebar, Abhay Goyal, and Feroze Siddiqui were in
telephonic contact with each other after the incident till 05.06 2003, the
learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence of Shivram
15
Prasad Kalluri (PW-86) who has testified that Abhay Goyal made several
attempts to speak to Ajit Jogi on the night of the incident. Without any
evidence whatsoever, the learned trial Court has grossly erred in
assuming that these attempts on the part of Abhay Goyal showed his
conspiracy with Chiman Singh, Yahya Dhebar and Feroz Siddiqui,
without knowledge of Amit Jogi.
11. Mr. Goverdhan further submits that the learned trial Court has grossly
erred in ignoring Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short,
the Act of 1872) which permits a Court to take into account, the conduct
of accused persons before and after the crime and also ignored the
provisions of Section 10 of the Act of 1872. The accused conspired in a
calculated manner not only for the commission of the offence but to
ensure that the evidence at the stage of trial as well as at the initial stage
of investigation is manipulated by subverting the State Police machinery,
the approach of the learned trial Court ought to have been geared
towards arriving at the truth. The learned trial Court grossly erred in
ignoring the fact that the prosecution of the accused persons, including
accused-Amit Jogi related to a continuing conspiracy, wherein Amit Jogi
along with convicts, Yahya Dhebar, Chiman Singh and Abhay Goyal,
entered into a conspiracy, the object of which was to disrupt a
forthcoming rally of the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) on 10.06.2003
for purely political purposes, and for this purpose to eliminate persons
who would interfere with this object such as the deceased. This object
has even not been denied by the hostile witness more particularly, Rohit
Prasad (PW-126). In furtherance of this conspiracy establishing both
pre-murder motive and conduct of the accused persons, the deceased
was called/contacted by the father of Amit Jogi and was threatened,
which fact the deceased disclosed to Dr. Anil Verma (PW-89) and also
16
further corroborated by complainant-Satish Jaggi (PW-41). The learned
trial Court has grossly erred in ignoring the evidence of Satish Jaggi
(PW-41) whereby he stated that two days before arrival of V.C.Shukla
i.e. on 10.04 2003, Rajendra Tiwari had called the deceased which call
was received by PW-41 and they were asked to see Rajendra Tiwari
who told the deceased that the father of Amit Jogi wanted the deceased
to keep away from politics as well as from V.C.Shukla and arranged a
meeting of deceased with father of Amit Jogi after which the deceased
was perturbed and told this witness that the Chief Minister dissuaded
the deceased from associating with V.C.Shukla and had threatened the
deceased with dire consequences. The learned trial Court further failed
to appreciate that the next portion of the conspiracy comprised of
meetings that took place at Green Park Hotel and the residence of the
Chief Minister at Raipur, wherein crucial decisions were taken in
furtherance of the larger conspiracy. Rejinald Jeremiah (PW-85), is also
amongst other witnesses who have proved this fact. The testimony of
PW-85 regarding the events and decisions taken in the meetings held at
Hotel Green Park and at the CM House has neither been given
weightage nor this witness was effectively cross examined nor any doubt
was created in his version. The conspiracy also included calling of
accused/convict-Chiman Singh by PW-85 at the behest of accused-Amit
Jogi and his stay at Batra House owned by convict-Yahya Dhebar which
were permanently given to Akash Channel, a TV Cable company run by
Amit Jogi and his associates. The accused No. 7 to 20 were also kept in
Batra House before they went with accused Chiman Singh to cause
murder of the deceased.
12. Conviction of all accused persons, barring accused-Amit Jogi according
to the account of the prosecution, demonstrates that the circumstances
17
in the chain of events have been established clearly and the chain of
events is such as to rule out any likelihood of the innocence of Amit Jogi.
The conspiracy behind the murder of the deceased has been proved by
the deposition of Reginald Jeremiah (PW-85) whose statement was
recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Ex.P-143), which has also been
proved by Chandrashekhar, Metropolitan Magistrate (PW-152) beside
there were other circumstantial evidence which proved the criminal
conspiracy hatched up by Amit Jogi with other convicts. In his deposition
before the Court, PW-85 established that apart from being a truthful
witness, he knew and identified Amit Jogi amongst other convicted
persons. He established that there was a meeting at Hotel Green Park,
Raipur on or about 21.05. 2003. He has stated that Amit Jogi, Rohit
Prasad, Raj Awasthi, Moksh Sinha, Arjun Bhagat, Michael Williams, Raj
Singh, Bhupender Singh, Navneet Joshi, Sidharth Asati, Abhay Goyal,
Yahya Dhebar and Luv Kumar Mishra were present at the Green Park
Hotel on 21.05.2003. PW-85 also established that he had been called to
Hotel Green Park by accused-Amit Jogi to attend the said meeting. In
his deposition before the Court, PW-85 has stated that he was present in
the room at the time when Amit Jogi stated that a leader of the NCP
must be finished, and PW-85 had opposed this suggestion made by
Amit Jogi who wanted to eliminate the deceased as he was the leader of
the NCP. In his deposition before the Court, PW-85 further went on to
establish that the task of eliminating the deceased was handed over by
Amit Jogi to Chiman Singh. Upon being cross-examined in this respect,
PW-85 made it clear that while convict Chiman Singh had not been
present when PW-85 had first entered the room in Hotel Green Park,
Amit Jogi had directed PW-85 to call Chiman Singh to Hotel Green Park.
PW-85 also established the occurrence of a second meeting between
18
the accused persons after 21.05.2003, which took place at the CM
House in Raipur. Apart from being as close to an eye witness to the main
conspiracy as possible, PW-85 has proved to be a reliable, credible,
courageous and truthful witness. The defence has made several
attempts to threaten, coerce and otherwise force PW-85 to turn hostile to
the prosecution case. PW-85, in fact, was forced to request for security
during the pendency of the present trial. The evidence tendered by PW-
85 must be appreciated in these circumstances and cannot be said to
have been untruthful. The acts of the accused persons, including Amit
Jogi inasmuch as they have, inter alia, made a concerted attempt to
misdirect the investigation into a serious offence, leads to further proof
that the testimony of PW-85 with regard to the existence of a prior
conspiracy to murder the deceased was correct and ought to have been
relied upon by the learned trial Court. PW-85 had secured employment
at Akash Channel in Raipur, which was run by persons known to and
under the direct supervision of Amit Jogi. PW-85's deposition has also
been proven by testimony of other witnesses. Babu Lal Sen (PW-68), a
travel agent in Raipur, has conclusively established that accused Yahya
Dhebar, Abhay Goyal and Amit Jogi were in routine contact with each
other and Abhay Goyal had booked tickets for PW-85. PW-68, along
with documents seized from him and documents seized from other travel
agencies, conclusively establishes the fact that PW-85 travelled to
Calcutta after the murder of the deceased Beside aforesaid there were
other circumstancial evidences which corroborated the testimony of PW-
85. Even under cross-examination by the defence, the testimony of PW-
85 inter alia in relation to payment made to accused Chiman Singh has
not been contradicted and thus stands proved. PW-85 has therefore
established the main conspiracy and its participants who have been
19
convicted by the trial court for the charge of conspiracy other than Amit
Jogi. The recoveries and seizures effected by the prosecution in the
course of their investigation, when read in conjunction with the evidence
of PW-85 clearly indicates the extent of the conspiracy, wherein Amit
Jogi has been involved in from the very inception. The learned trial Court
further erred in not appreciating the well settled law that accomplice is a
competent witness even though he has participated in the commission of
the offence if his evidence is corroborated by material particulars by
other independent evidence. One of the accused Rakesh Kumar
Sharma, vide Exhibit P-129, wrote a letter to the deceased's family,
enclosing a photograph of the gold Rudraksh Mala worn by the
deceased at the time of his murder. The letter has been proved as the
extra Judicial confession of accused Rakesh Kumar Sharma which,
establishes and corroborates the prosecution version of conspiracy. The
case was built on proof and evidence and not mere suspicion. The
learned trial Court ought to have seen the evidence along with the
circumstances surrounding this case, namely that a heinous and brutal
murder had been committed by and at the behest of powerful political
persons.
13. Mr. Goverdhan further submits that the scope of interference in acquittal
appeal is very limited. Because at the beginning of the trial, there is
presumption of "innocence" in favor of the accused, which gets
reinforced by the order of acquittal passed by the trial court. If upon
perusal of the evidence and materials available on record, two views are
possible, then merely because, the view, which is favoring the accused,
is taken by the trial court, is no ground to interfere with the findings of
acquittal recorded by the appellate Court. However, the appellate Court
has ample power under Section 386 of Cr.P.C, to re-appreciate the
20
evidence and material available on record and can also review the
findings recorded by the learned trial Court, and if upon re-appreciation,
the appellate Court finds that, the view taken by the learned trial Court, is
palpably illegal, wrong, perverse, contrary to the evidence available on
record and without any concrete basis, then under such circumstances,
the appellate Court can interfere with the order of acquittal. In support of
this contention, he places his reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court
in Siju Kurian v. State of Karnatka {AIR 2023 SC 2239}, Arjun
Panditrao Kotkar Vs Kailash {AIR 2020 SC 4908}, Pattu Rajan v.
State of Tamilnadu {AIR 2019 SC 1674}, Suvarnamma v. State of
Karnataka {(2015) 1 SCC 323}, A.N.Venkatesh and ors. v. State of
Karnataka {AIR 2005 SC 3809} and State of Rajasthan v. Kashiram
{AIR 2007 SC 144}.
14. According to Mr. Goverdhan, in the present case, a conspiracy was
hatched by the accused persons including the accused-Amit Jogi. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court has very specifically held in catena of its
judgments that conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and executed in
darkness and therefore, seldom, prosecution is able to bring direct
evidence of criminal conspiracy and most of the time, it has to be
inferred from the circumstantial evidences and materials collected by the
prosecution. The conspiracy under Section 120-B of IPC is an exception
to the general rule, that even one of the conspirators, who has not
participated actively in execution of crime, can also be held equally
liable, if he is part of the conspiracy. In support of his contention, he
places reliance on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Sanjeev
v. State of Kerala {2023 INSC 998}. In order to prove the conspiracy
hatched by the accused-Amit Jogi with other co-accused persons, the
following evidences have been produced by the prosecution, viz. Vijay
21
Jain (PW-73), Reginald Jeremiah (PW-85), Siddharth Asati (PW-97),
Raj Singh (PW-100), Ajit Singh (PW-104), Vishnu Prasad Thakur (PW-
105), Rohit Prasad (PW-126). Further, the call details Exhibits P/101,
102, 103, 104, 105, and 106 have been proved by Bruno Frank (PW-
107). Furthermore, the memorandum statement (Exhibit P/26) of main
accused i.e. the assailant Chiman Singh has been proved by
B.K.G.Naidu (PW-20). This accused has confessed that he was called
at Raipur at the instance of the accused-Amit Jogi. He has further stated
that, the accused-Amit Jogi has introduced him with the co-accused
persons and directed him to do and act as per the dictates of the Rohit
Prasad, Abhay Goyal, Yahya Dhebar, Ejaj Dhebar. Thereafter he has
narrated the entire incident and has also stated about the involvement of
co-accused Yahya Dhebar, Abhay Goyal, Rakesh Kumar @ Baba, and
Vikram along with himself and therefore, this confessional statement is
admissible under Section 30 of Evidence Act, not only against Chiman
Singh, but also against co-accused including the accused-Amit Jogi
who has been named by this accused in his statement. This goes to
show that, the deceased was done to death, as a result of conspiracy
hatched by the accused-Amit Jogi alongwith other co-accused persons.
It is submitted that, all the accused who have been named by Chiman
Singh have been tried together for same offence and this statement has
been proved by PW- 20. Hence it is submitted that, as all the ingredients
of section 30 of Evidence Act is proved by the prosecution, therefore, the
Hon'ble Court can take into consideration such confession against
Chiman Singh along with co-accused Yahya Dhebar, Abhay Goyal
Rakesh Sharma, and Vikram.
15. Mr. Goverdhan further submits that visitors register of CM's house has
been seized vide Exhibit P-82 and the registered has been marked as
22
Exhibit P-81A and P-81B and in order to prove the contents of the said
register, the security guards have been examined by the prosecution as
R.S.Nayak (PW-87), Kameshwar Baghel (PW-92), Patras Xalxo (PW-
96), Prem Bahadur Gurung (PW-102) who have duly proved the
contents of the entries of the register and have deposed that, the co-
accused persons of this case, very frequently use to meet Amit Jogi at
CM's house. The meeting of the accused-Amit Jogi at CM's house, with
co-accused persons goes to indicate only one thing that, these meetings
were convened with only one object, i.e., to sabotage the rally of NCP, in
order to restrain them to come in power, at any cost.
16. Mr. Goverdhan further submits that the learned trial Court has relied
upon one set of evidence to hold the 28 co-accused guilty, but the same
set of evidence which is available against the accused-Amit Jogi as well,
has been disbelieved on flimsy grounds and only on the basis of
presumption, which has got no basis, and it has been held without any
foundation that accused-Amit Jogi can not be said to be a part of
criminal conspiracy hatched for commission of murder of the deceased.
As per the deposition of witnesses i.e. PW-73, PW-85, PW-97, PW-100,
PW-104, and PW-126 there use to be meetings convened in CM's
House, Butra House, Green Park Hotel etc. at the instance of accused-
Amit Jogi with the object of making the Rally of NCP, of which deceased
Ramawtar Jaggi was treasurer, unsuccessful, and for that, the accused-
Amit Jogi was ready to go to any extent. Once the learned trial Court has
arrived at a conclusion that, there was criminal conspiracy amongst
original accused No. 2 to 29, then, the accused-Amit Jogi at whose
instance, the meetings were called, places of meetings decided, main
executant of offence Chiman Singh was chosen and asked to follow the
dictates of Abhay Goyal and Yahya Sidhhiqui; given Rs. 5 lacs, vehicles
23
and shelters were provided, bogus/ false accused were inducted, then
how it can be said that, he is not actively involved in commission of
crime by hatching the criminal conspiracy? Therefore it is clear that, the
finding recorded by the learned trial Court in respect of accused -Amit
Jogi being innocent and not involved in criminal conspiracy is wholly
perverse, unsustainable, contrary to materials available on record and
therefore same is liable to be reversed. The prosecution has proved its
case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore the involvement of the
accused-Amit Jogi in commission of murder of Ramavtar Jaggi is fully
established and hence, the judgment passed by the learned trial Court in
respect of the accused-Amit Jogi requires interference of this Hon'ble
Court and resultantly, the appeal filed by the CBI may kindly be allowed
and he may be convicted for the offences under Sections 120-B, 302/34
and 427/34 of IPC, and sentenced suitably, in the interest of justice.
17. Dr. Sourabh Kumar Pande, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing
for the State, while concurring with the submissions advanced by Mr.
Goverdhan, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-CBI submits
that there is ample evidence available on record to convict the accused-
Amit Jogi for the offences for which he was charged for by the learned
trial Court. The acquittal of the said accused cannot be justified in any
manner and he deserves to be convicted and sentenced suitably.
18. Mr. Shri Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the complainant-Satish
Jaggi (respondent No. 3 in ACQA No. 66/2026) in addition to what has
been argued by Mr. Goverdhan, learned Counsel appearing for the CBI
as well as Dr. Pande, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State,
submits that the present is a case where the deceased was murdered
pursuant to a conspiracy hatched between the accused persons, several
of whom (including Amit Jogi) are persons of high political influence,
24
authority and power. This is evident from the proven fact that even the
local police machinery joined the conspiracy to deflect the investigation
from the actual offenders and plant a set of five false accused (Accused
No. 25 to 29) to subvert the course of justice in this most heinous crime.
On account of the undue interference and illegal acts of the accused
persons, as many as 27 witnesses turned hostile during the trial. Due to
the pressure exerted by the accused persons, a number of witnesses
also had to be given up by the prosecution as they had been
pressurized/compromised by the accused persons and were not in a
position to depose freely or fairly. The concerted effort to manipulate and
falsify evidence by subverting the State Police machinery, and the
influence exerted over multiple prosecution witnesses during the trial is
necessary and relevant context for this Hon'ble Court to assess and
appreciate the evidence in the present prosecution case to arrive at the
truth.
19. Mr. Singh further submits that there had been defects and deficiencies in
the investigation from the initial stage. The vehicles i.e., Bolero (Article
R) and Maruti Van (which were recovered under Exhibit P/80) were
suppressed and hidden away while Mahindra Marshall vehicles were
procured and were sought to be introduced in the prosecution arising out
of FIR No.104/2003. The weapon by which the death was caused was
replaced with another weapon to create a conflict between the forensic
evidence of the bullet which caused the death of deceased and the
weapon shown to be recovered in FIR No.104/2003. The CBI was
brought into the investigation only in January 2004. In the intervening
period of at least six months, accused persons which included members
of the State Police i.e., accused No. 22, 23 and 24, had a free rein in
misdirecting the investigation into the murder of the deceased. The
25
prosecution has sought to prove its case by relying on oral testimony of
witnesses as also the documents including documents and material
utilized by the accused persons to falsely implicate accused No. 25 to 29
and to deflect the investigation from discovering the actual assailant
accused No. 2 and the role of accused-Amit Jogi and other accused.
The entire product of investigation including the FIR No.104/2003 has
been proved and is crucial in showing the conduct of the accused
persons who have taken every step to subvert the cause of justice and
interfere with the investigation at the initial stage. This fact has only been
discovered after the CBI took over the investigation in January 2004,
and when the CBI unearthed the conspiracy based on which not only
was the deceased murdered but the investigation by the local police was
deliberately subverted and misdirected. The FIR registered by the
Station House Officer of Police Station, Maudhapara being FIR
No.104/2003, is clearly false when compared to the manner in which the
investigation conducted by CBI has panned out. In the present case, the
character of the approvers, Mahant @ Bulthu Pathak (PW-64) and
Suresh Singh (PW-65), cannot be said to be tainted or in any manner
unreliable. PW-64 and PW-65, while withstanding pressure exerted by
the accused persons, have deposed freely and without any fear. Their
deposition, while independently corroborated by each other, is
corroborated by evidence collected from mobile phone companies, hotel
records, and evidence collected through seizures and recoveries. The
approvers established the case of the prosecution that the State Police
investigation conducted prior to the introduction of CBI was merely an
eyewash and a blatant attempt to subvert the course of justice and
shield the true perpetrators. The planting of the two Marshall Vehicles
was done at the instance of Suryakant Tiwari (accused No. 21) and
26
Rakesh Chandra Trivedi (accused No. 22). The approvers have clearly
stated as to the manner in which the arrest of five put up accused was
stage managed by the State Police, while hiding the true facts including
the participation of Amit Jogi, Chiman Singh, Yahya Dhebar, Abhay
Goyel, amongst others in the commission of the murder of the deceased.
PW-64 and PW-65 have deposed in detail as to the manner in which the
accused No. 25 to 29 were selected after several other persons for the
position of planted accused had been rejected by accused-Suryakant
Tiwari on the grounds that they were unsuitable or from the same
religious background as that of Amit Jogi and his family. After the
execution of the main conspiracy on 04.06.2003, the accused-Amit Jogi,
Chiman Singh, Yahya Dhebar and Abhay Goyel put into motion the
second limb of the conspiracy that was to escape the clutches of law
and to subvert any investigation made in this regard.
20. Mr. Singh further submits that the subsequent conduct of the accused-
Amit Jogi is relevant to determine motive under Section 8 of the Act of
1872. Satish Jaggi (PW-41) stated that two days before arrival of V.C.
Shukla i.e. on 10.04.2003, Rajendra Tiwari (a witness given up by both
the prosecution as well as the defence) had called deceased which call
was received by PW-41 and they were asked to see Rajendra Tiwari
who told the deceased that the then Chief Minister wanted the deceased
to keep away from politics and V.C. Shukla and arranged call of
deceased with the Chief Minister after which the deceased was
perturbed and told his son, PW-41, that the Chief Minister dissuaded
him from associating with V.C. Shukla and had threatened the deceased
with dire consequences. Prakash Tiwari (PW-48) states that he called
deceased from his mobile number and after some time heard a voice
"Nahin Bhaiya Ab Nahin Karunga" (which sounded terrorized). The
27
conduct is covered under Section 8 of the Act of 1872.
21. According to Mr. Singh, Section 8 of the Act of 1872 embodies the rule
that the testimony of res gestae is permissible when it goes to the root of
the matter concerning the commission of a crime. Section 8 deals mainly
with three aspects; one, facts which show or constitute a motive for any
fact in issue; second, acts constituting preparation for any fact in issue or
relevant fact; and third, the conduct of the person either antecedent or
subsequent to the offence. This subsequent conduct of the accused
persons, apart from being per se dishonest and illegal, directly follows
from the successful execution of the first part of the main conspiracy and
strengthens the prosecution case regarding the existence of the main
conspiracy between Amit Jogi and accused No. 2 to 4 to murder the
deceased. The attempts to contact Satish Jaggi (PW-41) through
Shekhar Singh (DW-20) and try to get him to withdraw FIR No. 105/03 is
also indicative of the guilt of the accused persons. Section 8 of the
Evidence Act permits a Court to take into account, conduct subsequent
as well as conduct antecedent to a crime. The acts of the accused
persons inasmuch as they have, inter alia, made a concerted attempt to
misdirect an investigation into a serious offence, leads to further proof
that the testimony of Rejinald Jeremiah (PW-85) with regard to the
existence of a prior conspiracy to murder the deceased is correct and
can be relied upon. This conduct of the accused persons is relevant to
the fact in issue, i.e., the existence of an overarching conspiracy to
murder the deceased, must be taken cognizance of while analyzing the
evidence of PW-85 and other witnesses who go on to establish the
existence of the main conspiracy by accused-Amit Jogi and accused No.
2 to 4 to murder the deceased solely to achieve political gain and
thereafter cover up the incident by manipulating the investigation and
28
deflecting it from the real offenders. PW-85 also gave a statement under
Section 164 CrPC reiterating his statement made to the CBI. The
prosecution case, including proof regarding the procurement of five men
who were willing to accept responsibility and undergo punishment for the
murder of the deceased despite the fact that they had absolutely no role
or part to play in the murder, goes to show that the accused persons
made every possible effort to shield the main conspirators, including the
accused-Amit Jogi and accused No. 2 to 4 and others. Accused No. 9-
Rakesh Kumar Sharma wrote a letter to the deceased enclosing a
photograph of the Gold Rudraksh Mala worn by the deceased at the
time of his murder. The letter has been proved as the extra judicial
confession of accused No. 9 and which establishes and corroborates the
prosecution version of conspiracy and the role of accused No. 2-Chiman
Singh as the person who had shot the deceased.
22. Mr. Singh lastly submits that the impugned judgment has failed to
consider all the evidence clearly implicating accused-Amit Jogi in the
conspiracy to murder the deceased, as noted above. Instead, the
impugned judgment inexplicably concludes that accused No. 2 to 4 were
the key conspirators who orchestrated the conspiracy with the remaining
accused- purportedly without the knowledge of Amit Jogi in order to
demonstrate their loyalty either to Amit Jogi or his father. This is an
absurd conclusion. Such a defence was never even pleaded by any of
the accused persons, nor is it borne out by the prosecution or defence
evidence. The assumption that accused-Chiman Singh, Yahya Dhebar,
Abhay Goyal and Feroz Siddhiquie not only orchestrated the murder of
the deceased but also went so far as to plant fake accused to cover up
their crime, using the assistance of corrupt police personnel no less all
without the knowledge of the sitting Chief Minister's son is inherently
29
preposterous. The impugned judgment's analysis of the motive,
therefore, cannot even be considered a possible conclusion from the
evidence, let alone a reasonable one. There is no basis for artificially
distinguishing between accused-Amit Jogi and the remaining convicts
when the reliability and sufficiency of the evidence have been confirmed
by this Hon'ble Court in the appeals filed by the convicts/accused.
Hence, the present acquittal appeal deserves to be allowed. In support
of his contentions, Mr. Singh places reliance on the decisions rendered
by the Apex Court in Narain Singh v. State of Punjab {(1962) SCC
OnLine SC 203}, State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdev Singh {(1992) 3
SCC 700}, Noor Mohammad Mohd. Yusuf Momin v. The State of
Maharashtra {(1970) 1 SCC 696}, Gurdeep Singh v. State of
Punjab {2025 SCC OnLine 1669}, Sahadevan v. State {(2003) 1 SCC
534}, Karnel Singh v. State of M.P. {(1995) 5 SCC 518}, Paras
Yadav v. State of Bihar {(1992) 2 SCC 126}, Faddi v. State of M.P.
{1964 SCC OnLine SC 123}, Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab {1957
SCC OnLine SC 1}, Maghar Singh v. State of Punjab {(1975) 4 SCC
234}, A. Devendran v. State of T.N. {1997) 11 SCC 720}, Madan
Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab {(1970) 2 SCC 733} and the judgment
in Dal singh v. King Emperor {1917 SCC OnLine PC 16}.
23. Mr. Singh further submits that so far as the revision petition being CRR
No. 232/2008 against the accused No. 2 to 29 are concerned, the said
revision petition has been rendered infructuous on account of dismissal
of their appeal filed before this Court.
24. Mr. Vikas Walia, learned Counsel appearing for the accused-Amit Jogi
submits that today, he has filed an application (IA No. 2/2026) under
Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking
reasonable time to go through the entire voluminous record and prepare
30
his submissions for final argument. He submits that since the record of
this case are voluminous running into thousands of pages, it is very
difficult for him to go through the entire record in such a short span of
time as he has been engaged in this case two days ago. He further
submits that the order passed by this Court yesterday i.e. on 01.04.2026
in these cases have also been challenged before the Apex Court and the
order dated 25.03.2026 passed by this Court granting leave to appeal
against the acquittal of accused-Amit Jogi, has already been challenged
on 30.03.2026, before the Apex Court the Diary No. of which is
19294/2026, which is likely to be taken up on coming Monday. As such,
he prays that he may be allowed three or four weeks time to reply to
submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the CBI, the State as well
as the complainant/respondent No.3.
25. It transpires from the record that this case has a chequered history. The
offence was committed on 04.06.2003. The trial concluded on
31.05.2007, i.e., after approximately four years, resulting in the acquittal
of the accused, Amit Jogi @ Amit Aishwarya Jogi and conviction of the
remaining accused. The accused persons who were convicted,
preferred appeals before this Court in the year 2007. These appeals
were dismissed by this Bench vide judgment dated 04.04.2024, thereby
affirming the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by
the learned trial Court. The complainant, Satish Jaggi, filed a revision
petition being CRR No. 434/2007 challenging the acquittal of Amit Jogi,
and another revision petition being CRR No. 232/2008 seeking
enhancement of the sentence awarded to the convicted accused. The
CBI, on 03.11.2011, filed an application seeking leave to appeal against
the acquittal of Amit Jogi before this Court, registered as Cr.M.P. No.
495/2011. The said application was dismissed by a co-ordinate Bench
31
of this Court vide order dated 12.09.2011. Aggrieved by the said
dismissal, the CBI preferred SLP(Crl) No. 3037/2012 before the Apex
Court. Similar challenges were also made by the State of Chhattisgarh
through SLP (Crl) No. 7331/2011, and by the complainant through SLP
(Crl) Nos. 7331/2011 and 1438/2012. The SLP filed by the CBI was
allowed, and the matter was remitted to this Court for fresh consideration
of the application for grant of leave to appeal on merits. However, the
SLPs filed by the State as well as the complainant were dismissed vide
order dated 06.11.2025.
26. On 24.03.2026, during the hearing of the revision petitions, namely CRR
No. 434/2007 and 232/2008, it was brought to the notice of this Court
that the SLP filed by the CBI had been allowed. Accordingly, directions
were issued for issuance of notices to the de facto complainant, Satish
Jaggi, and the accused, Amit Jogi, requiring their appearance either in
person or through Counsel on the following day, i.e., 25.03.2026. On
25.03.2026, Mr. Shailendra Shukla, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the
accused, Amit Jogi. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, this
Court allowed the petition, being Cr.M.P. No. 495/2011, and directed the
Registry to register the acquittal appeal, which was also admitted for
hearing. As the CBI had not taken steps to implead the de facto
complainant as a party respondent, this Court directed that the
complainant be impleaded as such in the acquittal appeal. The accused-
Amit Jogi, was further directed to furnish bail bonds and sureties to the
satisfaction of the concerned trial Court on or before 31.03.2026. It was
also directed that the acquittal appeal be listed on 01.04.2026 along with
CRR No. 434/2007 and 232/2008.
27. On 01.04.2026, when these matters were taken up for hearing, this
Court passed the following orders:
32
"Heard Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, learned counsel for the
Appellant-Central Bureau of Investigation (for short, the CBI), Mr.
Shree Singh alongwith Mr. Raj Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for
the Complainant-Satish Jaggi, Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, learned
Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned
Government Advocate for the State, Mr. R.S.Marhas, learned
counsel for the respondents No. 21, 22 and 23 {in Cr.R. No.
232/2008}.
At the outset, it has been pointed out that vide order dated
12.10.2023 passed by this Court, the respondent No. 7-Vikram
Sharma {in Cr.R. No. 232/2008}, was directed to be deleted from
the cause title as he had died on 24.02.2013 regarding which a
death certificate was also placed on record. Till date, the said
respondent has not been deleted from the array of the parties. In
the appeal filed before this Court being Cr.A. No. 735/2007, the
name of the said accused has already been deleted. Hence, the
Registry is directed to delete the name of respondent No. 7-Vikram
sharma in Cr.R. No. 232/2008, during course of the day.
In pursuance of the order dated 06.11.2025 passed by the
Apex Court in Cr.A. No(s). 1927/2014 filed by the State of
Chhattisgarh, alongwith other connected matters, Cr.M.P. No.
495/2011, filed by the CBI, was heard by this Court on 25.03.2026
and leave to appeal was granted to the CBI and the acquittal
appeal was admitted for hearing and notices were also issued to
the respondent No. 1-Amit Aishwarya Jogi and he was further
directed to furnish his bail bond and sureties to the satisfaction of
the trial Court concerned.
On the said date i.e. 25.03.2026, Mr. Shailendra Shukla,
Advocate caused his appearance on behalf of the accused-Amit
Aishwarya Jogi and sought time to seek instructions and to file his
Vakalatnama which was allowed and the matters were directed to
be listed today for final hearing.
Today, when these cases are taken up for hearing, another
Advocate Mr. Vikas Walia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the accused-Amit Aishwarya Jogi submits that though he has filed
Vakalatnama on behalf of the accused today, he prays that he may
33
be granted four week's time to prepare the case and the hearing of
appeal be adjourned. In this regard, he has filed an application
being IA No. 1/2026 under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking four week's time to prepare and
address final arguments in ACQA No. 66/2026. Placing reliance
on the judgment of the Apex Court in Anokhilal v. State of
Madhya Pradesh {AIR 2020 SC 232}, he submits that the
accused herein is entitled to a fair hearing and to have adequate
time and facilities for the preparation of his defence. It is further
submitted that the order dated 25.03.2026 passed by this Hon'ble
Court, granting leave to appeal against acquittal resulting in the
present proceeding have been challenged before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court by the accused vide Diary No. 19294/2026, on
30.03.2026 which is presently pending consideration.
In compliance of the Apex Court's order dated 06.11.2025,
the de facto complainant Mr. Satish Jaggi was also made one of
the respondent in the appeal filed by the CBI (ACQA No. 66/2026)
as respondent No. 3. The said complainant is being represented by
Mr. Shree Singh and Mr. Raj Bahadur Singh, learned counsel, and
the State is being represented by Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande,
learned Deputy Advocate General, who are present before the
Court.
The order passed by the Apex Court dated 06.11.2025, in
Cr.A. No. 1927/2014 and other connected matters, which is on
record, on the basis of which the matter was firstly listed on
24.03.2026, this Court passed the following orders:
"Mr. B.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the
applicant, submits that the matter has been remanded by
the Hon'ble Apex Court for rehearing; however, he has no
instructions as of today.
Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the CBI, along with Dr. Saurabh
Pande, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for
the State, jointly submit that the State had preferred
CRMP No. 137 of 2008 seeking leave to appeal against
the judgment of acquittal dated 31.05.2007 passed by the
34
learned trial Court in favour of the accused, Amit
Aishwariya Jogi. The said application was dismissed by a
Coordinate Bench of this Court on 18.08.2011 on the
ground that an application for leave to appeal filed by the
State was not maintainable in a case investigated by the
CBI.
It is further submitted that the CBI had also
challenged the judgment and order dated 31.05.2007 by
filing CRMP No. 495 of 2011; however, the same was
rejected by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order
dated 12.09.2011 on the ground of delay. Additionally,
CRMP No. 434 of 2007, preferred by the de facto
complainant, namely Satish Jaggi, seeking conversion of
the revision into a criminal appeal to enable him to
challenge the acquittal of Amit Aishwariya Jogi, was also
dismissed vide order dated 19.09.2011.
Being aggrieved by the orders dated 18.08.2011,
12.09.2011, and 19.09.2011, the parties preferred CRA
No. 1927 of 2014 and connected matters before the
Hon'ble Apex Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court, vide order
dated 06.11.2025, condoned the delay in filing CRMP No.
495 of 2011 and remitted the matter to this Court for fresh
consideration of the application for leave to appeal filed by
the CBI on merits. It was further directed that the CBI shall
implead the de facto complainant as well as the State as
necessary parties in the said proceedings.
Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, learned counsel for the
CBI, has also produced a copy of the order dated
06.11.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in CRA
No. 1927 of 2014, which is taken on record.
Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned counsel, submits
that he had earlier appeared on behalf of respondent No.
2 in CRR No. 434 of 2007; however, he presently has no
instructions, as he has since been appointed to the State
panel.
Since CRMP No. 495 of 2011 is not listed before
35
this Court today, it is directed that the same be connected
with the present cases and listed tomorrow, i.e.,
25.03.2026.
As the matter has been remanded by the Hon'ble
Apex Court, it is deemed appropriate to issue notice to the
de facto complainant, Satish Jaggi, as well as to the
accused/respondent No. 2, Amit Aishwariya Jogi,
directing their appearance before this Court tomorrow,
either in person or through counsel of their choice.
The notice shall be served through the
Superintendent of Police, Raipur, who shall file a personal
affidavit regarding service.
The learned State counsel is directed to
communicate a copy of this order to the Superintendent of
Police, Raipur for necessary compliance.
Certified copy today."
Thereafter, notices were issued to the de facto complainant-
Satish Jaggi and the respondent/ accused-Amit Aishwarya Jogi, for
their appearance before this Court either in person or through their
respective counsel and the matters were directed to be posted on
25.03.2026 on which date, leave was granted to the CBI for filing the
acquittal appeal. The accused-Amit Aishwarya Jogi was also
directed to furnish his bail bonds and it is informed by Mr. Walia,
learned counsel appearing for the accused-Amit Aishwarya Jogi that
bail bond and sureties have been duly furnished on 30.03.2026
before the learned trial Court.
The matter was remanded by the Apex Court vide order dated
06.11.2025 for being decided by this Court, and one of the co-
accused namely Yahya Dhebhar has recently been granted bail on
18.03.2026 in Cr.A. No. 4800/2024, by the Apex Court wherein the
Apex Court has also observed as under:
"....
The applicant, Yahya Dhebar, has been in prison
since 30.04.2024. By way of this application, he seeks
suspension of the sentence imposed upon him and grant
36
of bail pending the disposal of his appeal.
We are now informed that a 3-Judge Bench of this
Court passed judgment dated 06.11.2025 in Criminal
Appeal No. 1927/2014 and batch whereby, in relation to
the very same offence, the appeal of the Central Bureau of
Investigation has been allowed. Consequently, the
application of the CBI for grant of leave to appeal against
the acquittal of one of the accused in this offence was
directed to be considered by the High Court on its own
merits.
We are also informed that the revisions filed by
Satish Jaggi, the de facto complainant, are also pending
consideration before the High Court, viz., Criminal
Revision Nos. 434/2007 and 232/2008.
Given this situation and in the light of the judgment
passed by the 3-Judge Bench, it would not be appropriate
for this Bench to hear the appeals filed by the convicted
appellants at this stage. The appeals would necessarily
have to await the decision of the High Court in the
aforestated pending cases, as consideration of the
evidence adduced against the convicted appellants in
these appeals by this Court will invariably impact the
pending cases before the High Court.
In such a situation, we do not think it would be
proper that the applicant, Yahya Dhebar, should continue
to remain in prison, when other similarly situated co-
convicts have been granted the relief of suspension of
sentence and consequential bail.
The sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the
applicant, Yahya Dhebar, that stood confirmed by the High
Court, shall stand suspended on payment of the fine
amounts. The applicant shall be released on bail on such
appropriate terms and conditions as may be fixed by the
trial Court.
I.A. No. 295380/2025 is disposed of accordingly.
In the light of the aforestated observations, these
37
appeals shall stand adjourned sine die.
Learned counsel for the parties may make a mention
for re-listing of these appeals after the disposal of the
matters pending before the High Court.
Lastly, as the hearing and disposal of these appeals
hinges upon the disposal of the pending matters before the
High Court, we would request the High Court to expedite
the hearing of those pending matters to the extent
possible."
When these matters are taken up today for hearing in pursuance
of the order passed by the Apex Court on 06.11.2025, dialatory tactics
are being adopted by the counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-
Amit Aishwarya Jogi, by praying for adjourning the matters for four
weeks.
On the last date of hearing, Mr. Shailendra Shukla, learned
counsel had appeared on behalf of the accused-Amit Aishwarya Jogi
and had sought time to file his Vakalatnama and to seek instructions.
He also requested the Court that a set of paper book may be
supplied to him upon which this Court directed the learned counsel
appearing for the CBI to supply a set of paper book to Mr.
Shailendra Shukla which was duly complied with.
Today, Mr. Goverdhan, learned counsel for the CBI, Dr.
Pandey, learned State counsel alongwith Mr. Marhas, learned
counsel for the respondents No. 21 to 23 are present and a new
counsel, namely, Mr. Vikas Walia has appeared on behalf of the
accused-Amit Aishwarya Jogi who prays for adjournment of these
cases on the ground that the paper book is voluminous and would
take some time for preparing the case as he has been engaged as
counsel yesterday itself.
The record reflects that on the previous date of hearing, i.e.,
25.03.2026, sufficient opportunity was granted to the accused
through his then counsel, Mr. Shailendra Shukla, who sought time to
obtain instructions and was also furnished with a complete set of the
paper book at his request. Despite this, instead of proceeding with
the matter, the accused has now chosen to engage another counsel
at the eleventh hour, who reiterates the same prayer for adjournment.
38
Such conduct, in the considered opinion of this Court, clearly
indicates a deliberate attempt to delay the proceedings. The
repeated change of counsel, coupled with successive requests for
adjournment on identical grounds, cannot be permitted to impede the
progress of a matter which has been specifically remanded by the
Hon'ble Apex Court with a request for expeditious disposal. Further,
the connected revision petitions filed by the complainant are pending
since 2007 and 2008 respectively and the petition i.e. Cr.M.P. No.
495/2011, seeking leave to appeal against the acquittal of the
accused-Amit Aishwarya Jogi was filed way back in the year 2011 by
the C.B.I. and after its dismissal by this Court, the same was
challenged before the Apex Court by the C.B.I. and the Apex Court,
vide order dated 06.11.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.)
No. 3037/2012, remanded the matter back to this Court for fresh
consideration on the application for grant of leave to appeal, on
merits. Thereafter, the Apex Court, in Cr.A. No. 4805/2024, filed by
one of the convict, namely Yahya Dhebhar, while granting bail, has
observed that the High Court should expedite the hearing of the
pending matters to the extent possible. In this backdrop, any attempt
to protract the hearing on untenable grounds deserves to be
deprecated.
Accordingly, the application (IA No. 1/2026) seeking
adjournment is hereby rejected. However, in the interest of justice,
the matters are directed to be listed tomorrow, i.e., 02.04.2026, to
afford an opportunity to the learned counsel for the accused-Amit
Aishwarya Jogi, to prepare the case and make appropriate
submissions.
It is further made clear that if the counsel engaged by the
accused-Amit Aishwarya Jogi is not ready to argue the matter
tomorrow, this Court shall pass appropriate orders.
Let these matters be listed again tomorrow i.e. on
02.04.2026 for final hearing."
28. After the arguments concluded by Mr. Goverdhan, Dr. Pande and Mr.
Singh, learned Counsel for the CBI, the State as well as the
complainant, when this Court asked as to what is the response of the
39
accused, Mr. Walia, learned Counsel for the accused/respondent No. 1-
Amit Jogi reiterated that he may be granted four weeks time to reply to
the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the CBI, the State as
well as the complainant/respondent No. 3 and again prayed for
adjournment of the hearing of the appeal.
29. It is to be noted that the request for adjournment had already been
rejected on the previous day i.e. 01.04.2026 by this Court. Despite this,
the same prayer has been reiterated today through another application,
being IA No. 2/2026. It has also been submitted by Mr. Walia that the
order dated 01.04.2026 passed by this Court has been challenged
before the Apex Court.
30. It is pertinent to mention here that the final hearing of the present appeal
alongwith the revision petitions started today at 10:30 a.m. and the
learned Counsel appearing for the CBI, the State and the complainant/
respondent No. 3 duly addressed this Court for more than 1½ hours and
when the learned Counsel appearing for the accused-Amit Jogi was
called upon, the Counsel, Mr. Walia even did not make slightest of effort
to commence his arguments except to say that he needs four weeks
time to submit his reply. 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-respondent No. 1 and
his Counsel Mr. Walia.
31. It is difficult to comprehend how a Counsel, appearing on behalf of a
party, can abruptly withdraw from the case on the instructions of the
client, followed by the appearance of another Counsel who files a
Vakalatnama and again seeks an adjournment, especially when the
matter has been pending after being remanded by the Apex Court vide
40
order dated 06.11.2025 for a considerable long period of nearly five
months. Such conduct on the part of the accused appears to be a
deliberate attempt to delay the proceedings, which this Court cannot
countenance.
32. The Apex Court, in Ishwarlal Mali Rathod v. Gopal & Others {SLP(C)
Nos. 14117-14118 of 2021, decided on 20.09.2021}, while dealing with
the issue of repeated adjournments sought by the Counsel appearing for
the parties, observed as under:
"5. Grant of repeated adjournments in routine manner and how it
affects ultimately the justice delivery system as such came to be
considered by this court in catena of decisions and asking/grant of
repeated adjournments have been repeatedly condemned by this
court.
5.2 Commenting on the delay in the justice delivery system,
although in respect of the criminal trial, Krishna Iyer, J. in the case
of Babu Singh v. State of U.P. (1978) 1 SCC 579 has observed in
paragraph 4 as under:
"4. ... Our justice system, even in grave cases, suffers from
slow motion syndrome which is lethal to 'fair trial', whatever
the ultimate decision. Speedy justice is a component of
social justice since the community, as a whole, is
concerned in the criminal being condignly and finally
punished within a reasonable time and the innocent being
absolved from the inordinate ordeal of criminal
proceedings."
5.3 In the case of Noor Mohammed v. Jethanand and Anr. (2013)
5 SCC 202, using very harsh words and condemning the repeated
adjournments sought by the lawyers and granted by the courts,
this court has observed in paragraph 1, 12, 13, 27 and 28 as
under:
" ....
13. It has to be kept in mind that the time of leisure has to
be given a decent burial. The sooner it takes place, the
41
better it is. It is the obligation of the present generation to
march with the time and remind oneself every moment that
the rule of law is the centripodal concern and delay in
delineation and disposal of cases injects an artificial virus
and becomes a vitiating element. The unfortunate
characteristics of endemic delays have to be avoided at any
cost. One has to bear in mind that this is the day, this is the
hour and this is the moment, when all soldiers of law fight
from the path. One has to remind oneself of the great
saying, "Awake, Arise, 'O' Partha".
...
28. In a democratic setup, intrinsic and embedded faith in
the adjudicatory system is of seminal and pivotal concern.
Delay gradually declines the citizenry faith in the system. It
is the faith and faith alone that keeps the system alive. It
provides oxygen constantly. Fragmentation of faith has the
effect potentiality to bring in a state of cataclysm where
justice may become a casualty. A litigant expects a
reasoned verdict from a temperate Judge but does not
intend to and, rightly so, to guillotine much of time at the
altar of reasons. Timely delivery of justice keeps the faith
ingrained and establishes the sustained stability. Access to
speedy justice is regarded as a human right which is deeply
rooted in the foundational concept of democracy and such a
right is not only the creation of law but also a natural right.
This right can be fully ripened by the requisite commitment
of all concerned with the system. It cannot be regarded as a
facet of Utopianism because such a thought is likely to
make the right a mirage losing the centrality of purpose.
Therefore, whoever has a role to play in the justice
dispensation system cannot be allowed to remotely
conceive of a casual approach.”
5.4 In the aforesaid decision, this court also considered the role of
advocate in the justice delivery system and considered the earlier
decisions in paragraphs 17 to 22 which read as under:
“…
42
18. In this context, we may refer to the pronouncement in
Pandurang Dattatraya Khandekar v. Bar Council of
Maharashtra [(1984) 2 SCC 556 : 1984 SCC (Cri) 335] ,
wherein the Court observed that : (SCC p. 563, para 9)“9. … An advocate stands in a loco parentis towards the
litigants and it therefore follows that the client is entitled
to receive disinterested, sincere and honest treatment
especially where the client approaches the advocate for
succour in times of need.”
19. In Lt. Col. S.J. Chaudhary v. State (Delhi Admn.) [(1984)
1 SCC 722 : 1984 SCC (Cri) 163 : AIR 1984 SC 618] , a
threeJudge Bench, while dealing with the role of an
advocate in a criminal trial, has observed as follows : (SCC
pp. 72324, para 3)
“3. We are unable to appreciate the difficulty said to be
experienced by the petitioner. It is stated that his
advocate is finding it difficult to attend the court from day
to day. It is the duty of every advocate, who accepts the
brief in a criminal case to attend the trial from day to day.
We cannot overstress the duty of the advocate to attend
to the trial from day to day. Having accepted the brief, he
will be committing a breach of his professional duty, if he
so fails to attend.”
20. In Mahabir Prasad Singh [(1999) 1 SCC 37 : AIR 1999
SC 287], the Bench, laying emphasis on the obligation of a
lawyer in his duty towards the Court and the duty of the
Court to the Bar, has ruled as under: (SCC p. 44, paras 17-
18)
“17. … ‘A lawyer is under obligation to do nothing that
shall detract from the dignity of the court of which he is
himself a sworn officer and assistant. He should at all
times pay deferential respect to the Judge, and
scrupulously observe the decorum of the courtroom.’
[Warevelle’s Legal Ethics, p. 182]
18. Of course, it is not a unilateral affair. There is a
reciprocal duty for the court also to be courteous to the
43
members of the Bar and to make every endeavour for
maintaining and protecting the respect which members of
the Bar are entitled to have from their clients as well as
from the litigant public. Both the Bench and the Bar are
the two inextricable wings of the judicial forum and
therefore the aforesaid mutual respect is sine qua non for
the efficient functioning of the solemn work carried on in
courts of law. But that does not mean that any advocate
or a group of them can boycott the courts or any
particular court and ask the court to desist from
discharging judicial functions. At any rate, no advocate
can ask the court to avoid a case on the ground that he
does not want to appear in that court.”
21. While recapitulating the duties of a lawyer towards the
court and society, being a member of the legal profession,
this Court in O.P. Sharma v. High Court of P&H [(2011) 6
SCC 86 : (2011) 3 SCC (Civ) 218 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 821 :
(2011) 2 SCC (L&S) 11] has observed that : (SCC p. 92,
para 17)“17. The role and status of lawyers at the beginning of
sovereign and democratic India is accounted as
extremely vital in deciding that the nation’s administration
was to be governed by the rule of law.”
The Bench emphasised on the role of eminent lawyers
in the framing of the Constitution. The emphasis was also
laid on the concept that lawyers are the officers of the court
in the administration of justice.
22. In R.K. Garg v. State of H.P. [(1981) 3 SCC 166 : 1981
SCC (Cri) 663] , Chandrachud, C.J., speaking for the Court
pertaining to the relationship between the Bench and the Bar,
opined thus : (SCC p. 170, para 9)
“9. … the Bar and the Bench are an integral part of the
same mechanism which administers justice to the
people. Many members of the Bench are drawn from the
Bar and their past association is a source of inspiration
and pride to them. It ought to be a matter of equal pride
44
to the Bar. It is unquestionably true that courtesy breeds
courtesy and just as charity has to begin at home,
courtesy must begin with the Judge. A discourteous
Judge is like an ill tuned instrument in the setting of a
courtroom. But members of the Bar will do well to
remember that such flagrant violations of professional
ethics and cultured conduct will result in the ultimate
destruction of a system without which no democracy can
survive.”
5.5 Today the judiciary and the justice delivery system is facing
acute problem of delay which ultimately affects the right of the
litigant to access to justice and the speedy trial. Arrears are
mounting because of such delay and dilatory tactics and asking
repeated adjournments by the advocates and mechanically and in
routine manner granted by the courts. It cannot be disputed that
due to delay in access to justice and not getting the timely justice it
may shaken the trust and confidence of the litigants in the justice
delivery system. Many a times, the task of adjournments is used to
kill Justice. Repeated adjournments break the back of the litigants.
The courts are enjoying upon to perform their duties with the object
of strengthening the confidence of common man in the institution
entrusted with the administration of the justice. Any effort which
weakens the system and shake the faith of the common man in the
justice dispensation has to be discouraged. Therefore the courts
shall not grant the adjournments in routine manner and
mechanically and shall not be a party to cause for delay in
dispensing the justice. The courts have to be diligence and take
timely action in order to usher in efficient justice dispensation
system and maintain faith in rule of law. We are also aware that
whenever the trial courts refused to grant unnecessary
adjournments many a times they are accused of being strict and
they may face displeasure of the Bar. ……”
33. Cr.M.P. No. 495/2011, which had earlier been dismissed by a co-
ordinate Bench of this Court on 12.09.2011, was subsequently
remanded to this Court pursuant to the order dated 06.11.2025 passed
by the Apex Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 3037/2012. On both occasions,
45
learned Counsel for the accused, Amit Jogi, was present, and the
accused was fully aware of the orders passed by this Court as well as by
the Apex Court. CRR No. 434/2007 and 232/2008 were taken up for
hearing on 24.03.2026, when Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Counsel
for the accused was also present. At that stage, the said Counsel
submitted that although he had earlier represented the accused, he
presently had no instructions, and further informed the Court that he had
since been appointed to the State Panel. In view of this submission, the
matters were directed to be listed on the following day, i.e., 25.03.2026,
along with Cr.M.P. No. 495/2011. Notices were also issued to the de
facto complainant as well as to the accused, Amit Jogi, for their
appearance either in person or through Counsel. Cr.M.P. No. 495/2011
was allowed by order dated 25.03.2026, at which time the accused, Amit
Jogi, was duly represented by his Counsel, Mr. Shailendra Shukla.
Consequently, the acquittal appeal was directed to be registered, and
the accused was required to furnish bail bonds, which he duly complied
with on 30.03.2026. It is also pertinent to note that the Apex Court, while
hearing Criminal Appeal No. 4800/2024 and connected matters on
18.03.2026, requested this Court to expedite the hearing of these cases.
Thereafter, on 01.04.2026, Mr. Walia sought four weeks’ time to prepare
and advance his submissions, which request was declined by this Court.
34. The above sequence of events clearly demonstrates that the accused/
respondent No. 1-Amit Jogi had sufficient opportunity of nearly five
months for preparation of his case through his Counsel from 06.11.2025
when Cr.M.P. No. 495/2011 was remanded back by the Apex Court to
this Court till 24.03.2026, when the revision petitions were listed and
heard, and further on 25.03.2026, when the leave to appeal i.e. Cr.M.P.
No. 495/2011 was allowed and Acquittal Appeal was ordered to be
46
registered as Mr. Shailendra Shukla had appeared on behalf of the
accused/respondent No. 1-Amit Jogi on the said date. On 25.03.2026,
Mr. Shukla sought time to get the paper books and prepare the case.
The learned Counsel for the CBI was also directed by this Court on
25.03.2026 to supply a set of paper book to him which was duly supplied
but the accused/respondent No. 1-Amit Jogi withdrew instructions from
his counsel, Mr. Shukla and thereafter, on 01.04.2026, engaged Mr.
Walia who appeared on behalf of the accused/ respondent No. 1-Amit
Jogi on which date the prayer made by Mr. Walia (IA No. 1/2026)
seeking adjournment for four weeks was rejected by this Court.
35. A prayer seeking adjournment has again been made today by way of IA
No. 2/2026. From the record, it is evident that the accused, Amit Jogi,
has been aware from the very inception of the listing of the matters, their
progress, and the orders passed by this Court as well as by the Apex
Court. Despite this, the Counsel appearing on his behalf has persistently
refrained from advancing arguments or even commencing submissions.
The Counsel, Mr. Shailendra Shukla, who was engaged earlier, on
25.03.2026, was granted full opportunity to prepare the case but later
on, he withdrew from the case stating that he had no instructions from
his client accused/respondent No. 1-Amit Jogi and he had been
restrained from filing his Vakalatnama. Thereafter, Mr. Walia appeared
on 01.04.2026 on behalf of the accused-Amit Jogi. Such conduct
reflects a deliberate effort to delay and obstruct the hearing and progress
of the cases for oblique motive. No party to a case should gain by an
adjournment. In these circumstances, we find no justifiable ground to
grant any further opportunity to Mr. Walia. Accordingly, IA No. 2/2026 is
rejected.
36. It is well established that even if the accused fails to cooperate in the
47
hearing of an appeal against conviction, the Court cannot automatically
record a conviction. The Court must independently assess whether the
prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. So far as the
appeal against acquittal is concerned, an accused continues to enjoy the
presumption of innocence, reinforced by the existing order of acquittal.
However, the appellate Court is fully empowered to scrutinize the trial
Court’s judgment to determine whether it is perverse, manifestly
erroneous, illegal, or contrary to the evidence on record, and lacking any
reasonable basis. It may evaluate the available material and proceed to
decide the matter and pass orders accordingly. In these circumstances,
the responsibility of the Court is accentuated and it must diligently
discharge its duty. This Court cannot sit helplessly as a silent spectator if
a party to a case is deliberately trying to adopt dilatory tactics. The Court
cannot evade its obligation to ensure the proper and timely dispensation
of justice.
37. Be that as it may, in the compelling circumstances, which have arisen
due to the conduct of the accused/respondent No. 1 himself and his
Counsel, this Court proceeds to consider and decide the matters on the
basis of the submissions advanced by learned Counsel appearing for
the CBI, the State, and the complainant, as well as the material available
on record alongwith the trial Court record.
38. Section 386 of the Cr.P.C. deals with the powers of the appellate Court.
It would be beneficial to quote the said Section, which reads as under:
“386. After perusing such record and hearing the appellant or his
pleader, if he appears, and the Public Prosecutor, if he appears,
and in case of an appeal under section 377 or section 378, the
accused, if he appears, the Appellate Court may, if it considers
that there is no sufficient ground for interfering, dismiss the
appeal, or may –
48
(a) in an appeal from an order of acquittal, reverse such order
and direct that further inquiry be made, or that the accused be
re-tried or committed for trial, as the case may be, or find him
guilty and pass sentence on him according to law;
(b) in an appeal from a conviction –
(i) reverse the finding and sentence and acquit or
discharge the accused, or order him to be re-tried by a
Court of competent jurisdiction subordinate to such
Appellate Court or committed for trial, or
(ii) alter the finding, maintaining the sentence, or
(iii) with or without altering the finding, alter the nature or
the extent, or the nature and extent, of the sentence, but
not so as to enhance the same;
(c) in an appeal for enhancement of sentence –
(i) reverse the finding and sentence and acquit or discharge the
accused or order him to be re-tried by a Court competent to try
the offence, or
(ii) alter the finding maintaining the sentence, or
(iii) with or without altering the finding, alter the nature or the
extent, or the nature and extent, of the sentence, so as to
enhance or reduce the same;
(d) in an appeal from any other order, alter or reverse such
order;
(e) make any amendment or any consequential or incidental
order that may be just or proper;
Provided that the sentence shall not be enhanced unless the
accused has had an opportunity of showing cause against such
enhancement;
Provided further that the Appellate Court shall not inflict
greater punishment for the offence which in its opinion the
accused has committed, than might have been inflicted for that
offence by the Court passing the order or sentence under
appeal.”
39. There is no dispute that the appellate Court possesses wide powers
49
under Section 386 of the Cr.P.C. to re-appreciate the evidence and
material available on record, as well as to review the findings recorded
by the trial Court. If the view taken by the trial Court is found to be
manifestly erroneous, illegal, perverse, or contrary to the evidence on
record, and lacking any reasonable basis, the appellate Court is justified
in interfering with an order of acquittal. The Apex Court, in
Suvarnamma & Another (supra), has observed that in an appeal
against acquittal, no interference is warranted where the trial Court has
taken a possible and plausible view. However, where the view adopted
is not legally sustainable, the appellate Court is fully empowered to
interfere with the order of acquittal.
40. This Bench has already upheld the conviction and sentence imposed
upon the other accused/convicts. The present acquittal appeal filed by
the CBI, along with the revision petition preferred by the complainant,
pertains solely to the acquitted accused, Amit Jogi, though another
revision has also been filed seeking enhancement of the sentence of the
other convicts. This Bench has already concurred with the findings of the
learned trial Court that it was the accused, Chiman Singh, who fired the
gunshot at the deceased and was the actual assailant in a batch of
appeals, the lead one being Cr.A. No. 426/2007, vide its judgment dated
04.04.2024. The only issue that now remains for consideration is
whether the accused, Amit Jogi, was also a party to the conspiracy that
led to the commission of the murder of the deceased. In the appeals filed
by the convicted accused before this Court, this Bench has already held
that the prosecution had successfully established the existence of a
conspiracy among the said convicts for the commission of the offence.
41. It is an admitted position on record that, arising out of the same incident,
i.e. the commission of murder of the deceased, two separate criminal
50
cases were registered, arising out of two independent charge sheets.
The charge sheet in the first FIR lodged by the State Police {arising out
of Crime No. 104/2003} against unknown persons led to registration of
Sessions Trial No. 334/2003, whereas the charge sheet in the second
FIR lodged by the complainant-Satish Jaggi specifically against Amit
Jogi and his father {arising out of Crime No. 105/2003}, filed by the CBI,
gave rise to Sessions Trial No. 329/2005. In Sessions Trial No.
334/2003, the accused namely Vinod Singh @ Badal, Shyam Sundar @
Anand Sharma, Jambwant Kashyap, Avinash Singh @ Lallan, and
Vishwanath Rajbhar, were acquitted by judgment and order dated
31.05.2007, the learned trial Court having found that the prosecution
failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
42. In the FIR investigated by the CBI, a substantially wider array of accused
persons was impleaded, including Amit Jogi @ Amit Aishwarya Jogi,
Chiman Singh, Yahya Dhebar, Abhay Goyal, Shivendra Singh Parihar,
Feroz Siddiquie, Vikram Sharma, Vinod Singh Rathore, Rakesh Kumar,
Ashok Singh Bhadoriya, Sanjay Singh Kushwaha, Raju Bhadoriya,
Ravindra Singh, Narsi, Satyendra Singh, Vivek Singh, Lalla Bhadoriya,
Sunil Gupta, Anil Pachauri, Harishchandra, Suryakant, Rakesh Chandra
Trivedi, V.K. Pandey, Amrik Singh Gill, Avinash Singh @ Lallan Singh,
Jambwant, Shyam Sunder, Vinod Singh Rajput, and Vishwanath
Rajbhar. Out of the said accused, only Amit Aishwarya Jogi came to be
acquitted, whereas all remaining accused persons were convicted and
sentenced, as noted above.
43. Significantly, three of the accused, namely Amrik Singh Gill, V.K.
Pandey, and R.C. Trivedi, were police officials who had conducted the
investigation in the earlier FIR bearing Crime No. 104/2003. The manner
in which the said investigation was carried out is manifest from the fact
51
that all the accused therein were acquitted, thereby reflecting serious
infirmities in the investigative process. It is evident that, but for the
subsequent investigation undertaken by the CBI, the prosecution would
not have been in a position to bring forth material implicating the present
appellants/accused. It is further noteworthy that the CBI commenced its
investigation only on 22.01.2004, whereas the incident in question had
occurred on 04.06.2003. The intervening period provided sufficient
scope for tampering with evidence and tutoring of witnesses. More
importantly, the involvement of police officials themselves, who are well-
versed in criminal procedure, lends credence to the apprehension that
conscious efforts may have been made to shield the real offenders and
to protect vested interests.
44. The investigation conducted by the CBI reveals that accused Chiman
Singh was a long-standing associate of Ajit Jogi, the then Chief Minister
of Chhattisgarh, and had actively supported him in electoral
constituencies such as Marwahi and Shahdol. Chiman Singh was
summoned at the instance of Amit Jogi, and arrangements for his stay at
Raipur were made by Yahya Dhebar. During May 2003, criminal
conspiracy was hatched by Amit Jogi, Yahya Dhebar, and Abhay Goyal
at Hotel Green Park, Raipur, with the object of disrupting a rally of the
NCP in the run-up to the Assembly elections. Part of the conspiracy is
was hatched at the official residence of the then Chief Minister, with
participation of Chiman Singh. In furtherance of the said conspiracy,
Yahya Dhebar travelled to Gujarat, while Amit Jogi and Abhay Goyal
proceeded towards Rajnandgaon and Dongargarh. Other co-accused,
including Feroz Siddiquie and Chiman Singh, arranged finances and
logistics. Towards the end of May 2003, several accused persons
arrived at Raipur and were accommodated at Batra House, having been
52
received from the railway station by Chiman Singh. On 04.06.2003 at
about 9:30 p.m., the conspiracy was executed. Shivendra Singh Parihar
drove a Maruti Van with a manipulated registration plate, while Chiman
Singh and other accused travelled in a Bolero vehicle driven by Vinod
Rathore. Armed with bamboo sticks and petrol-filled bottles, they
proceeded towards the vicinity of the NCP office at Budhapara, Raipur.
The deceased, upon leaving the said office in his Alto car, was followed,
intercepted, and forcibly stopped. Thereafter, the accused persons
alighted from their respective vehicles and vandalised the vehicle of the
deceased. Chiman Singh fired at the deceased, resulting in his death,
while Rakesh Kumar Sharma @ Baba removed the Rudraksha mala
worn by the deceased. The accused thereafter fled towards Fafadih
Chowk. Subsequently, Chiman Singh informed Feroz Siddiquie
telephonically that the task had been accomplished. The accused
regrouped at Batra House. Feroz Siddiquie, along with Shivendra Singh,
proceeded to the hospital to ascertain the condition of the deceased
and, upon confirmation of his death, returned and informed the other
accused. Thereafter, communications were established with Yahya
Dhebar and Abhay Goyal, details whereof are elaborately set out in the
charge sheet. Following the incident, Amit Jogi instructed Reginald
Jeremiah (PW-85), Director of Akash Channel, to travel to Assam and
deliver a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to Chiman Singh. The travel
arrangements were facilitated by Abhay Goyal, and the amount was
ultimately handed over at Calcutta upon coordination between Reginald
Jeremiah and Chiman Singh.
45. The CBI investigation further disclosed a parallel conspiracy involving
Suryakant Tiwari, Bulthu Pathak, Suresh Yadav, R.C. Trivedi, V.K.
Pandey, and Amrik Singh Gill. With the object of shielding the actual
53
perpetrators, certain individuals, namely Avinash Singh, Jambwant
Kashyap, Shyam Sundar, Vinod Singh, and Vishwanath Rajbhar, were
falsely implicated and induced to assume culpability, particularly in light
of the FIR having initially named Ajit Jogi and Amit Jogi.
46. Admittedly, the accused-Amit Jogi, who is the son of the then Chief
Minister of the State, was also associated with the political party that
was in power in the State at the relevant time. The charge framed by the
learned trial Court against the said accused is material for the
adjudication of the present cases; accordingly, the same, along with its
translated version, is reproduced hereinbelow:
“1& vkius fnukad 04-06-2003 ds iwoZ ebZ ekg esa gksVy xzhuikdZ esa rFkk
eq[;ea=h fuokl] jk;iqj esa gqbZ cSBdksa esa vU; lg&vfHk;qDrksa fpeu flag] ;kg;k
<scj] vHk; xks;y] f’kosUnz flag] fQjkst flfÃdh] foØe ‘kekZ] fouksn flag jkBkSj]
jkds’k dqekj ‘kekZ] v’kksd dqekj HknkSfj;k] lat; flag dq’kokgk] jktw HknkSfj;k] jfo
mQZ jfoUnz flag dq’kokgk] ujfla ‘kekZ] lrsUnz flag rksej] foosd flag HknkSfj;k]
yYyk HknkSfj;k] lqfuy xqIrk] vfuy pkS/kjh ,oa gjh’k pUnz vkfn dbZ yksxksa ds
lkFk feydj jkekorkj tXxh tks fd] ,u-lh-ih- dk dks”kk/;{k Fkk] vkSj mldh
jSyh dks lQy cukus ds fy, tqVk Fkk] fd gR;k djus ;k djokus ds fy, lger
gksdj vkijkf/kd “kM~;a= fd;kA tks fd /kkjk 120¼ch½¼1½ Hkk-na-la- ds vUrxZr
n.Muh; vijk/k gSA
2& fnukad 04-06-2023 dks ekSngkikjk Fkkuk ds lehi jk;iqj esa mDr “kM~;a=
ds vuqlj.k esa fpeu flag] f’kosUnz] lat;] ckads] fouksn] foØe] jkds’k] v’kksd] jktw]
jfo] ujlha] lrsUnz] foosd] yYyk] lquhy] vfuy ,oa gfj’kpUnz us ,djk; ls e`rd
jkevorkj tXxh dh gR;k djus ds lkekU; vk’k; ls feydj] jkevorkj tXxh
dh dkj dks jksddj] mls dkj ds vUnj gh ekjihV fd;k] rFkk fpeu flag }kjk
mls xksyh ekjdj mldh e`R;q dkfjr djds gR;k dh xbZA tks fd /kkjk 302@34
Hkk-na-la- ds vUrxZr n.Muh; vijk/k gSA
3& mlh fnukad@le;@LFkku ij e`rd jkevorkj tXxh dh dkj ¼vkYVks½
dks fjf”V igqapkus ds vk’k; ls rksM+ QksM+ dj mls fjf”V dkfjr dhA Tkks fd /kkjk
427@34 Hkk-na-la- ds vUrxZr n.Muh; vijk/k gSA
vkSj esjs laKku {ks=kf/kdkj ds vUrxZr gSA vr% eSa vkns’k nsrk gwa fd
vkidk fopkj.k mDr vkjksiksa ds fy, bl U;k;ky; }kjk fd;k tkosA”
Translated version:
54
“1-Prior to the date 4-6-2003, during the month of May, in
meetings held at Hotel Green Park and the Chief Minister’s
Residence, Raipur, you, along with other co-accused
Chiman Singh, Yahya Dhebar, Abhay Goyal, Shivendra
Singh, Firoz Siddiqui, Vimal Sharma, Vinod Singh Rathore,
Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Ashok Kumar Bhadoria, Sanjay
Singh Kushwaha, Raju Bhadoria, Ravi alias Ravindra Singh
Kushwaha, Narsi Sharma, Satyendra Singh Tomar Vivek
Singh Bhadoria, Lalla Bhadoria, Sunil Gupta, Anil Pachauri,
and Harish Chandra and several others, conspired to
commit or cause the murder of Ramavatar Jaggi, who was
the Treasurer of the NCP and was engaged in making his
rally a success. This act constitutes a punishable offence
under Section 120-B(1) of the IPC (Indian Penal Code).
2- On the date 4-6-2003 near the Moudhapara Police
Station, Raipur, in pursuance of the aforementioned
conspiracy, the following persons – Chiman Singh,
Shivendra, Sanjay, Banke, Vinod, Vimal, Rakesh, Ashok,
Ravi, Narsı, Satyendra, Vivek, Lalla, Sunil, Anil, and
Harishchandra, with a common intention to kill the
deceased Ramaviar Jaggi, acted in unison to stop
Ramavtar Jaggi’s car They physically assaulted him while
he was inside the car, and Chiman Singh shot him, causing
his death and thereby committing murder. This act is a
punishable offence under Section 302/34 of the IPC.
3- On the same date, time, and place, with the intention of
causing damage to the deceased Ramavtar Jaggi’s car
(Alto), you/they vandalized it, thereby causing
mischief/damage. This act is a punishable offence under
Section 427/34 of the IPC.”
47. Section 8 of the Act of 1872 deals with the motive, preparation and
previous or subsequent conduct. The same reads as under:
“8. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent
conduct.–Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a
motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact.
55
The conduct of any party, or of any agent to any party,
to any suit or proceeding, in reference to such suit or
proceeding, or in reference to any fact in issue therein or
relevant thereto, and the conduct of any person an offence
against whom is the subject of any proceeding, is relevant, if
such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue
or relevant fact, and whether it was previous or subsequent
thereto.
Explanation 1.–The word “conduct” in this section does not
include statements, unless those statements accompany and
explain acts other than statements; but this explanation is not
to affect the relevancy of statements under any other section
of this Act.
Explanation 2.–When the conduct of any person is relevant,
any statement made to him or in his presence and hearing,
which affects such conduct, is relevant.”
48. The allegation against the accused persons, including Amit Jogi, is that
they intended to disrupt a rally proposed to be organized by the NCP in
connection with the ensuing Assembly Elections. It is also not in dispute
that the accused, Amit Jogi, was affiliated with the political party in
power in the State at the relevant time. The depositions of various
witnesses indicate that Amit Jogi was the principal architect of the
alleged conspiracy. It is well settled that a conspiracy is to be inferred
from circumstantial evidence, as direct evidence of the formulation of a
conspiracy is seldom available.
49. In Sanjeev (supra), the Apex Court, with respect to issue of establishing
a conspiracy under Section 120-B of the IPC, observed as under:
“35. After consideration of these depositions, we must
decide whether the evidence on record is sufficient to
establish a conspiracy under Section 120B, IPC. The
ingredients to constitute a criminal conspiracy were
summarised by this Court in State through
56Superintendent of Police v. Nalini & Ors.6 (3-Judge
Bench). They are as follows:
i. Conspiracy is when two or more persons agree to do
or cause to be done an illegal act or legal act by illegal
means.
ii. The offence of criminal conspiracy is an exception to
the general law, where intent alone does not constitute
crime. It is the intention to commit a crime and join
hands with persons having the same intention.
iii. Conspiracy is hatched in private or in secrecy. It is
rarely possible to establish a conspiracy by direct
evidence. Usually, the existence of the conspiracy and
its objects have to be inferred from the circumstances
and the conduct of the accused.
iv. Where in pursuance of the agreement, the
conspirators commit offenses individually or adopt illegal
means to do a legal act that has a nexus to the object of
the conspiracy, all of them will be liable for such
offenses even if some of them have not actively
participated in the commission of those offenses.
36. These principles were followed in Yakub Abdul
Razak Memon v. State of Maharashtra (2-Judge
Bench), wherein this Court reiterated that to establish
conspiracy it is necessary to establish an agreement
between the parties. Further, the offence of criminal
conspiracy is of joint responsibility, all conspirators are
liable for the acts of each of the crimes which have been
committed as a result of the conspiracy. [See also:
Arvind Singh v. State of Maharashtra8 (3-Judge Bench);
Mohd. Naushad (supra)].
50. In order to establish that the accused, Amit Jogi, was an integral part of
the alleged conspiracy, the deposition of Vijay Jain (PW-73) assumes
significance. The said witness was the Manager of Hotel Green Park,
where meetings of the accused persons were held on various occasions.
57
In his deposition, the witness has stated as under:
“4& eSa vfHk;qDr vfer tksxh] ;kg;k <scj] vHk; xks;y dks tkurk gwaA ;s yksx
gksVy xzhuokdZ esa dHkh&dHkh [kkuk [kkus ds fy;s vkrs jgrs FksA ;s yksx izk;% jkr
esa vkB cts ds ckn [kkus ds fy;s eq>s iwoZ lwpuk nsdj vkrs Fks] eSa gksVy esa mudk
Lokxr djrk FkkA os yksx vksiu xkMZu jsLVksjsaV esa cSBdj [kkuk [kkrs Fks] muds
lkFk pkj&ikap ,d&nks ckj os yksx FksA izk;% ,d lok ?kaVs :drs Fks vkSj [kkuk
[kkdj pys tkrs FksA izk;% gj eghus ,d&nks ckj os yksx vkrs FksA ;g o”kZ 2003
dh ckr gSA
8& ;g lgh gS fd vfey tksxh] ;kg;k <scj] vHk; xks;y eghus esa dHkh ,d
ckj] dHkh nks ckj gekjs jsLVkjsUV esa vkrs FksA tc Hkh os vkrs Fks] muds lkFk 4&5
vU; yksx Hkh jgrs FksA ;g lgh gS fd muds vkus ds igys lh ,e gkml ls Qksu
Hkh vk tkrk Fkk fd os vk jgs gSa Vscy fjtoZ djds j[kk tkos vkSj vkus dk le;
crk fn;k tkrk FkkA ;g lgh gS fd os vf/kdrj jkr vkB lk<s vkB cts vkrs
FksA ;g lgh gS fd eSa muds vkus ij Lokxr djds mUgsa Vscy rd ys tkrk FkkA
vkSj dsIVu dks cqyokdj muds [kkus dk vkMZj uksV djokrk FkkA vkSj Ogh-vkbZ-ih-
dk O;ogkj fn;k tkrk Fkk rFkk ikl esa ,d osVj Hkh nks&rhu QhV dh nwjh ij
j[kk tkrk FkkA vkSj eSa Hkh chp&chp esa vkdj ns[krk jgrk FkkA ;g lgh gS fd ;s
ftl Vscy ij cSBrs Fks mlds vkl&ikl ds Vscyksa ij vU; xzkgd Hkh cSBk djrs
FksA ;g lgh gS fd ;s yksx [kkuk lekIr djds ogka ls pys tkrs Fks] rc eSa mUgsa
xkM+h rd NksM+rk FkkA”
51. Satish Jaggi (PW-41) is the complainant and son of the deceased. He
was the person who lodged the second FIR which was later on
investigated by the CBI. His statement is clear and unambiguous. He
has clearly deposed that the police was reluctant to add the name of
Amit Jogi and his father, the then Chief Minister, in the FIR.
“10& ckn esa geus Jh ik.Ms; Vh-vkbZ- dks cgqr fuosnu fd;k fd ge tks dg jgs
gSa og ,Q-vkbZ-vkj- fy[ksa rc mUgksaUks eq>s ,d dksjk dkxt nsdj dgk fd vkidks
tks fy[kuk gS] mlesa fy[k nksA bl chp ogka ij cgqr ls yksx ftuesa dqN i=dkj
vkSj odhy Hkh Fks] igqap pqds FksA mu lcus Vh-vkbZ- Jh ik.Ms; dks ;g dgk fd
tc og ,Q-vkbZ-vkj- fy[kkuk pkgrk gS rks rqe D;ksa ugha fy[krsA rc Jh ik.Ms;
Vh-vkbZ- Fkkus ds ckgj [kM+s eqds’k xqIrk ,l-ih- ds ikl tkdj mUgsa cqyk,A ge
yksxksa us RkFkk ogka ij mifLFkr tkudkj yksxksa us Jh xqIrk ls Hkh fuosnu fd;k fd
tc e`rd dk yM+dk fjiksVZ fy[kkuk pkgrk gS rks fjiksVZ fy[k fy;k tk;sA rc Jh
58eqds’k xqIrk us Vh-vkbZ- Jh ik.Ms; dks dgk fd ;s tks cksyrk gS] mls fy[k nksA rc
Jh ik.Ms; us esjs cksys vuqlkj ,Q-vkbZ-vkj- fy[kk FkkA
11& Jh ik.Ms; Vh-vkbZ- ds ikl esa ,Q-vkbZ-vkj- fy[kk jgk Fkk] mlh le;
chp&chp esa os vius eksckbZy Qksu ij fdlh ls lEidZ djds ;g cksyrs Fks fd lj
;g rks ,slk dg jgk gS] fQj Qksu dV tkrk Fkk rks vkxs fy[krs Fks] ,slk chp&chp
esa rhu&pkj ckj mUgksaus fdlh ls ckr dhA ckn esa tc eSa ,Q-vkbZ-vkj- fy[kk
pqdkA vkSj og fy[kk fn;k fd ?kVuk ds ihNs lk{kh fQj dgrk gS fd eSa ;g
fy[kokuk pkg jgk Fkk fd bl ?kVuk ds ihNs vthr tksxh ,oa vfer tksxh dk
gkFk gS] rc ;g ckr lqudj Jh ik.Ms; mls ,Q-vkbZ-vkj- esa fy[ks ugha vkSj dye
NksM+dj mBdj ckgj pys x;sA fQj 5&6 feuV ckn okil vk;s rc esjh ckr iwjh
fy[ksA ,Q-vkbZ-vkj- iwjh gks xbZ rc mlij gLRkk{kj fy[ks FksA vkSj eq>s mldh ,d
izfrfyfi iznku fd;s FksA
29& ml fnu eSa vkbZ-th- Jh jkefuokl ds ?kj tkdj nj[okLr fn;k Fkk] mUgksaus
nj[okLr Ik<+dj dgk Fkk fd blesa ,d ckr ;g Hkh tksM+ nks fd xkMZ dk tks
isesUV gksxk og ge yksx nsaxs] rc eSaus dgk fd xkMZ dk isesUV ge dgka ls ns
ik;saxsA rks Jh jkefuokl us dgk fd vkils isesUV dkSu ekax jgk gS] vki dsoy
fy[k nks vkSj esjs dk;kZy; esa fHktok nksA rc eSa ogka ls okil vk x;k FkkA fQj
nwljs fnu lqcg ‘ks[kj flag dk Qksu vk;k vkSj iwNk fd rqe jsMh gks rks eSa gka dgk
vkSj fQj FkksM+h nsj ckn og ?kj vkdj eq>s vius lkFk ysdj eq[;ea=h fuokl ys
x;k FkkA xkM+h esa esjs vkSj ‘ks[kj ds vykok ,d vU; O;fDr Fkk ftldk uke vHk;
xks;y gksuk eq>s ‘ks[kj flag us crk;k Fkk vkSj mls vfer dk vPNk nksLr gksuk
crk;k FkkA xkM+h lh-,e+- gkÃ…l ds tokgj xkMZu ds ikl okyh ihNs ds xsV ls
vanj x;h Fkh] xsV ij gekjh dksbZ ,UVªh ugha yh xbZ FkhA vHk; xks;y xkM+h dks
pyk jgk FkkA mlus xkM+h jksdh rks geyksx uhps mrjs rks eSaus ns[kk dh ogh
lw;Zdkar frokjh th [kM+s gq;s Fks] tks ge yksxksa dks vkxs rd ys x;s] vkSj ,d dejs
esa fcBk fn;sA nks feuV ckn vfer tksxh ogka ij vk, muls gk;&gSyks ds ckn
geyksx cSBs vkSj lkekU; ckr gks jgh Fkh] dqN nsj esa Qksu vk;k tc vfer us
crk;k fd ikik ySaM dj x;s gSaA lkekU; ckrphr gksrh jgh] FkksM+h nsj esa Jh vthr
tksxh vk;sA
30& mUgksaus eq>ls iwNk fd rqe gh lrh’k gks] rks eSaus gka dgk] rc mUgksaus esjs
ikik ds lkFk ?kVuk gksus ds laosnuk izdV fd;kA fQj ;g dgk fd rqeus gesa cM+h
eqlhcr esa Mky fn;k vkSj ,Q-vkbZ-vkj- esa gekjk uke Myok fn;k gSA ftlls gesa
rdyhQ gks jgh gS] mls rqe okil ys yks] ?kVuk dh tkap py jgh gSA vkSj rqe
vius Hkfo”; dh lkspksA mUgksaus ;g Hkh dgk fd rqEgkjs jktuhfr esa :ph gks rks
crkvks vkSj O;kikj esa enn pkfg, rks crkvksA vkSj ‘ks[kj th dh vksj b’kkjk djds
dgk fd rqe buds ifjokj ls tqM+s gks ;s cgqr cM+s yksx gSa vkSj ge rqEgkjs fy, ckr
59dj ysrs gSa] os rqEgsa cgqr Ã…ij mBk;saxsA ;g lqudj eSaus dgk fd eq>s bu lc
phtksa dh vko’;drk ugha gSA eSaus okil tkus dh bPNk trkbZ rc ‘ks[kj th
eq>s :Bus dk b’kkjk fd,] fQj tksxh th us dgk fd vkvks uk’rk dj ysa] vkSj
Mk;fuax :e esa x;sA ogka lc yksx Mk;fuax Vscy esa cSBdj uk’rk fd;s] eSa dsoy
iksgk fy;kA vkil esa ppkZ py jgh Fkh] ogka ij eSMe tksxh rFkk ,d efgyk vkSj
Fkh tks cSBh FkhA bl LVst ij Jh lrh’k nRr vf/koDrk us ;g vkifRr mBkbZ fd
Jh vthr tksxh us lk{kh ls D;k dgk ;g bl izdj.k esa xzkg; ugha gSA D;ksafd u
rks Jh vthr tksxh vfHk;qDr gS vkSj u gh lk{kh gSA pwafd ?kVuk ds lEcU/k esa vkSj
?kVuk ds ckn ftuds fo:) lk{kh }kjk izFke bRryk fjiksVZ fy[kkbZ xbZ Fkh] mUgsa
Jh vthr tksxh us lk{kh dks vius ?kj cqykdj D;k ckrsa dh ;g ?kVuk ds fopkj.k
esa fdlh fu”d”kZ rd igqapus esas lgk;d gks ldrk gS] blfy, lk{kh dks viuh lh/kh
ckr dgus ls jksduk mfpr ugha gS] vr% vkifRr vekU; djds lk{kh dk dFku vkxs
vafdr fd;k x;kA”
From the above deposition, it is clear the then Chief Minister was not
happy with the fact that his name alongwith his son’s name i.e. Amit Jogi
was included in the FIR and he was being lured to take back his
complaint and was also threatened in a way.
52. Dr. Anil Verma, (PW-89), who is one of the acquaintance of the
complainant-Satish Jaggi (PW-41) has deposed as under:
“1& eSa jkekorkj tXxh dks fiNys 15&20 o”kksZa ls tkurk FkkA mudh gR;k gks
xbZ gSA jkekorkj tXxh cgqr feykulkj rFkk vkfLrd LoHkko ds O;fDr FksA
2& o”kZ 2003 esa LoxhZ; jkekorkj tXxh ,oa eSa nksuksa ,u-lh-ih- ikVhZ esa
inkf/kdkjh pqus x, FksA Jh tXxh mDr ikVhZ ds dks”kk/;{k vkSj eSa egklfpo
iz’kklfud izHkkjh ds in ij FksA
3& fnukad 10 vizSy 2003 dks eSa jkr djhc X;kjg] lk<+s X;kjg cts dk le;
Fkk] tc eSa Hkkstu dj jgk Fkk] rHkh jkekorkj tXxh dk Qksu esjs eksckbZy uEcj
98261&62600 ij vk;k] eSa Qksu mBk;k rc tXxh dk iq= lrh’k cksyk fd ikik
ckr djsaxs vkSj mUgsa Qksu fn;k] rc Jh jkekorkj tXxh ftUgsa ge yksx rk: tXxh
Hkh dgrs Fks] us eq>ls ckr dhA os ml le; cgqr ?kcjk;s gq;s vkSj jksrs&jksrs eq>ls
dgk fd rRdkyhu eq[;ea=h Jh vthr tksxh ls esjh Qksu ij ckr gqbZ gS vkSj
mUgksaus eq>ls dgk gS fd rqEgkjk ftruk fctusl gS] mlls ‘kk;n rqEgkjk dksbZ yxko
ugha gSA ;fn rqeus fo|kpj.k ‘kqDy dk lkFk ugha NksM+k ;k muds Lokxr esa x, rks
rqEgsa blds Hk;adj nq”ifj.kke Hkksxuk iM+sxkA rqEgsa usLrukxcwr dj fn;k tk;sxkA
604& rk: tXxh us ;g Hkh crk;k fd mlus ;g lkjh ckrsa ikap feuV igys gh
fnYyh esa fo|kpj.k ‘kqDy dks Qksu djds crk fn;k gSA vkSj fo|kpj.k ‘kqDy us
le>k;k gS fd dksbZ ckr ugha gS] ?kcjkvks er] jk;iqj ls ckgj pys tkvksA vkSj ;s
ckrsa MkW- vfuy oekZ dks crk nksA”
53. Reginald Jeremiah (PW-85) deposed that he had known the accused,
Amit Jogi, since their time as students at St. Stephen’s College, Delhi.
According to this witness, on 21.05.2003, he was summoned by Amit
Jogi to Hotel Green Park, where a meeting was convened to deliberate
upon a plan to disrupt an NCP rally. He affirmed the presence of several
individuals at the meeting, including Amit Jogi, Rohit Prasad, Raj
Awasthi, Moksh Sinha, Arjun Bhagat, Michael Williams, Raj Singh,
Bhupinder Singh, Navnit Joshi, Siddharth Asati, Abhay Goyal, and
Yahya Dhebar. During the course of the meeting, Amit Jogi proposed
that Balwinder Jaggi, Pramod Choubey, and the deceased, who were
associated with the NCP, be eliminated. The witness stated that he,
along with two or three others present, objected to this suggestion and
urged accused-Amit Jogi not to cause harm to any NCP members;
however, their objections were disregarded. He further deposed that,
upon Amit Jogi’s inquiry, he disclosed that he had telephonically
summoned Chiman Singh to the hotel. When Chiman Singh arrived,
Amit Jogi directed all others to leave the room, retaining only himself,
Rohit Prasad, and Chiman Singh inside. The relevant part of the
deposition is quoted hereunder:
“2& eSa tc lsUV LVhQu dkWyst ubZ fnYyh esa Ik<+rk Fkk] rc vfHk;qDr vfey
tksxh Hkh mlh dkWyst esa Ik<+rk FkkA rHkh mlls tku&igpku gqbZ Fkh vkSj dkWyst
ds ckn Hkh tku&igpku ,oa eqykdkr gksrs jghA eSa NRrhlx<+ ds eq[;ea=h ds :i
esa vthr tksxh ds ‘kiFk xzg.k lekjksg esa Hkh vfHk;qDr vfer ds lkFk fnYyh ls
jk;iqj fnlacj ekg esa vk;k FkkA vkSj fnlacj 2002 esa fnYyh esa NRrhlx<+ Hkou esa
Hkh x;k Fkk] ogha esjk ifjp; jkt voLFkh ls gqvk FkkA vkSj mlls esjk ifjp;
vfer tksxh us djok;k FkkA ogh jkt voLFkh us eq>ls dgk Fkk fd og NRrhlx<+
61esa dscy dk O;olk; djrk gSA mlus eq>s vkdk’k pSuy ds uke ds dscy O;olk;
esa Mk;jsDVj ds :i esa vkus dk vkQj fn;k FkkA
3& fnYyh esa vkus&tkus ds nkSjku gh fpeu flag ls Hkh esjk ifjp; vfer
tksxh ds ‘kkgtgka jksM+ fLFkr ?kj esa gh gqvk FkkA eSa tuojh 2003 esa gokbZ tgkt ls
jk;iqj vk;k rc ,;jiksVZ ij eq>s ysus ds fy, uouhr tks’kh vkSj fl)kFkZ vlkBh
vk, gq, Fks] muls Hkh vfer tksxh us esjk ifjp; fnYyh esa djok;k FkkA eSa muds
lkFk gksVy cschykWu esa x;k Fkk tgka esjs fy, ,d dejk cqd djok;k x;k FkkA
7& fnukad 21 ebZ] 2003 dks vfer tksxh us eq>s Qksu djds cksyk Fkk fd rqe
xzhuikdZ gksVy vk tkvks vkSj yo dqekj feJk dks Hkh lkFk ys vkvksA rc eSa cksysjks
Øekad& C.G.-04 B-7878 ls yo dqekj feJk ds lkFk xzhuikdZ gksVy x;k
FkkA ;g cksysjks xkM+h vkdk’k pSuy dh Fkh vkSj mls eSa pyk;k djrk FkkA ge
gksVy esa igqaps ml le; ogka ,d ehfVax py jgh Fkh] ftlesa ,u-lh-ih- dh jSyh
dks liksVst djus dk izksxzke cuk;k tk jgk FkkA ml ehfVax esa vfHk;qDr vfer
tksxh] jksfgr izlkn] jkt voLFkh] eks{k flUgk] vtqZu Hkxr] ekbZdy fofy;El] jkt
flag] HkwisUnj flag] uouhr tks’kh] fl)kFkZ vlkBh] vHk; xks;y] ;kg;k <s+cj] yksx
ekStwn FksA eSa vkSj yo dqekj feJk Hkh ogka igqaps FksA ml ehfVax esa vfHk;qDr vfer
tksxh us ;g vkbfM;k fn;k Fkk fd ,u-lh-ih- ds dqN [kkl yksx tSls cyfoUnj
tXxh] izeksn pkScs] jkekorkj tXxh tSls yksxksa dks [kRe dj nsaxsA ftlij eSaus rFkk
nks&rhu yksxksa us mls euk fd;k vkSj dgk fd ;g xyr ckr gksxh] fdUrq og ugha
ekukA vkSj mlus jkekorkj tXxh dk uke pquk tks fd ,u-lh-ih- dh jSyh ds fy,
Qk;usal dk dke ns[k jgk FkkA
8& bl dke ds fy, vfHk;qDr vfer tksxh us cksyk fd ;g dke fpeu flag
dks lkSairs gSaA fQj vfer tksxh us eq>ls dgk fd fpeu flag dks Qksu djds
cqykvksA fpeu flag ml fnu jk;iqj esa gh FkkA eSaus fpeu flag dks eksckby ls
Qksu djds xzhuikdZ gksVy esa cqyk;kA fQj fpeu flag gksVy esa vk;k] rc
vfHk;qDr vfer tksxh us ‘ks”k yksxksa dks dejs ls ckgj tkus ds fy, dgk vkSj dejs
ds vanj dsoy vfer tksxh] fpeu flag ,oa jksfgr izlkn jg x,] ge lHkh ckgj
vk x;s FksA fQj irk ugha fd os yksx dejs ds vanj D;k fd;sA fdUrq tc fpeu
flag dejs ds ckgj fudyk rks mlds gkFk esa ,d cSx FkkA ml cSx ds vanj D;k
Fkk ;g eq>s irk ugha mlds ckn lHkh yksx ogka ls pys x;sA
9& mlds nks&rhu fnu ckn esjs ikl vfer tksxh dk Qksu vk;k vkSj mlus
eq>s eq[;eaa=h fuokl esa cqyk;kA rc eSa eq[;ea=h fuokl x;k Fkk] ogka igaqpk rks
ns[kk fd ogka Hkh ehfVax py jgh Fkh vkSj ml ehfVax esa Hkh jkt voLFkh] jksfgr
izlkn] ekbZdy fofy;El] vtqZu Hkxr] jktohj flag] eks{k flUgk] jkt flag] ftrsUnz
flag] vHk; xks;y] ;kg;k <s+cj vkfn ogh yksx Fks tks gksVy xzhuikdZ ehfVax esa FksA
bl ehfVax esa Hkh ,u-lh-ih- dh jSyh dks dSls liksVst fd;k tk;s] blh ij ppkZ gks
62jgh FkhA mlesa dbZ yksx vius&vius vkbZfM;k ns jgs FksA fpeu flag us ;g
vkbZfM;k fn;k fd og HkhM+ esa tgjhys lkai NksM+ nsxk] rkfd HkhM+ NaV tk;sA jkt
voLFkh us dgk fd jSyh ds fnu lkjs cl] VsfDl;ka vkfn jk;iqj ‘kgj ds vanj gh u
vkus fn;k tk;sA ekbZdy fofy;El vkSj vtqZu Hkxr us dgk fd ge jSyh ds n`’;
dk izlkj.k ugha djsaxs vkSj mlds LFkku ij [kkyh eSnku n`’; fn[kk nsaxsA
12& fQj dqN fnu ckn vfer tksxh dk Qksu vk;k vkSj mlus eq>s eq[;ea=h
fuokl vkus ds fy, dgkA rc eSa ogka x;kA ml fnu ogka dsoy jksfgr izlkn vkSj
vfer tksxh FksA ogka vfer tksxh us eq>ls dgk fd vkidks vklke tkuk gS vkSj
fpeu flag dks pkj&ikap yk[k :i;s nsdj vkuk gSA mlus ;g Hkh dgk fd vkids
fVdV dk bartke gks tk,xk vkSj fVdV rFkk :i;s ,;jiksVZ ij gh feysaxsA mlus
ogha ls vHk; xks;y dks eksckby ij Qksu djds ;g dgk fd mldh fVdV dk
bartke dj nksA fQj tc vxys fnu eSa ,;jiksVZ tk jgk Fkk rc jkLrs esa ;kg;k
<scj us esjh xkM+h :dokbZ vkSj eq>s Iysu dk fVdV vkSj uksV ds caMy fn;s] dgk
fd ikaPk yk[k :i;s gSaA eSa ,;jiksVZ tkdj jk;iqj ls Hkqous’oj dh Q~ykbZV idM+h]
og Q~ykbZV Hkqous’oj xbZA Hkqous’oj ls eSaus dydRrk ds fy, nwljh Q~ykbZV
idM+hA vkSj dydRrk tkdj ikdZ gksVy esa :dk] mlds nks fnu ckn vklke tkus
dh Q~ykbZV Fkh] fdUrq og Q~ykbZV esjs ls pwd xbZ ;g ckr eSaus vfer tksxh dks
Qksu djds mls crk;k fd Q~ykbZV pwd xbZ gS] rks vfer tksxh us dgk fd og
fpeu flag dks Qksu djds dydRrk esa cqyok ys vkSj mlus eq>s fpeu flag ds ?kj
dk uEcj Hkh crk;k vkSj mls Qksu djus ds fy, dgkA rc eSaus fpeu flag dks ml
uEcj ij Qksu fd;k] fdUrq og ?kj ij ugha FkkA rc eSaus ;g lans’k NksM+ fn;k Fkk
fd og eq>ls esjs eksckbZy Qksu ij lEidZ djsaA ckn esa fpeu flag ls esjh ckr
Qksu ij gqbZ] rc eSaus mls dydRrk vkus ds fy, dgk FkkA vfHk;qDr fpeu flag
dydRrk vk;k] rc eSaus mls gksVy ikdZ ds dejs esa gh uksV ds caMy fn;s Fks]
tks ;kg;k <scj us eq>s mls nsus ds fy, fn;k FkkA ml fnu esjh jk;iqj dh
Q~ykbZV fel gks xbZ] rc fQj eSaus vfer dks Qksu djds crk;k Fkk fd Q~ykbZV
fel gks xbZ gSA gekjh ckr gks jgh Fkh] ml le; jksfgr izlkn ds lkFk Fkk] tks fd
mlls Qksu ysdj eq>ls ckr fd;k vkSj dgk fd rqe Vªsu ls jk;iqj vk tkvks] rc
eSa gkoM+k LVs’ku ls fcykliqj dk fVdV ysdj Vªsu ls fcykliqj vk;k vkSj
fcykliqj ls jk;iqj vf[ky flag dh xkM+h ls vk;k FkkA
26& eSa eftLVªsV lkgc ds le{k c;ku nsrs le; ‘kk;n ;g ugha crk;k Fkk fd
vfer tksxh us ,u-lh-ih- ds rhu yhMj cyfoUnj xXxh] izeksn pkScs ,oa jkekorkj
tXxh dks [kRe dj nks dgk FkkA eSaus eftLVªsV lkgc dks iwjk rFkk lp&lp c;ku
fn;k Fkk] ftruk eq>s ml le; ;kn FkkA ;g dguk lgh gS fd tc vfer tksxh
us yhMlZ dks [kRe djus dh ckr dgk] rc eSa pkSad x;k Fkk vkSj ?kcjk;k Hkh FkkA
vfer tksxh dks fdl&fdl us ;g dgk Fkk fd ,slk djuk xyr gksxk] muds uke
63eSa vkt ugha crk ldrkA fdUrq eSaus dgk Fkk fd ;g Bhd ugha gS] bruk cM+h dne
ugha mBkuk pkfg,A eSaus lh-ch-vkbZ- dks c;ku nsrs le; ;g crk fn;k Fkk fd eSaus
vfer tksxh dks euk fd;k FkkA lh-ch-vkbZ- us D;ksa ugha fy[kk gS] bldk eSa dksbZ
dkj.k ugha crk ldrkA dkQh le; gks tkus ds dkj.k vkt Bhd ls ;kn ugha vk
jgh gS fd eSaus ;g ckr c;ku nsrs le; eftLVs ªV lkgc dks crk;k Fkk ;k ugha fd
eSaus tksxh ds fopkjksa ls ,rjkt fd;k FkkA ;g dguk lgh gS fd vfHk;qDr vfer
tksxh us ;g dgk Fkk fd pwafd jkekorkj tXxh ,u-lh-ih- dks Qk;usal dj jgk gS
blfy, blh dks ejokuk pkfg,A eq>s vkt ;kn ugha gS fd eftLVs ªV dks c;ku nsrs
le; eSaus ;g ckr crk;k Fkk ;k ugha fd vfer tksxh us jkekorkj tXxh dks
ejokus dh ckr blfy, dgs Fks fd og ,u-lh-ih- dks Qk;usal dj jgk gSA”
54. Siddharth Asati (PW-97), is also the school friend of accused Amit Jogi.
He was in touch with him during college days and when he was working
in Delhi, he used to visit his place very often. He also knew the accused
Chiman Singh as Chiman Singh’s son was studying in Modern School at
Bara Khambha, Delhi. Amit Jogi had recommended him to join his cable
company. He deposed before the learned trial Court as under:
“6- vkdk’k pSuy] jk;iqj dk dk;kZy; ixkfj;k dkWEiysDl esa FkkA vkdk’k pSuy
ds vf/kdkfj;ksa dh feVhax dUVªh Dyc vkSj <scj gkÅl esa izk;% gqvk djrk FkkA
feVhax esa eSa] jktflag] uSouhr tks’kh] eks{k flUgk] HkqisaUnz flag] jksfgr izlkn] jkt
voLFkh vkfn Hkkx ysrs FksA
7- NRrhlx<+ esa jk”Vªoknh dkaxzsl dk xBu gqvk Fkk] ftldh jSyh gksus okyh
FkhA ge yksx fefM;k esa ml jSyh dks vlQy crkus ds iz;kl esa tqVs gq;s FksA eSa
vkdk’k pSuy ds fcykliqj ‘kk[kk esa dke djrk FkkA vkSj O;okflf;d fefVax esa
‘kkfey gksus ds fy;s jk;iqj vk;k djrk FkkA fefVax esa jSyh dks vlQy cukus ds
laca/k esa ;kg;k <scj] vHk; xks;y vfer tksxh dk leFkZu djrs FksA fefM;k esa
fdl izdkj jSyh dks vlQy n’kkZ;k tk;s bl laca/k esa lq>ko fn;s tkrs FksA eSaus
bldk dqN fojks/k Hkh fd;k Fkk fd bdne ls jSyh dks vlQy crkuk Hkh Bhd ugh
gksxkA
9- lk{kh ?kcjkgV esa fn[kkbZ iM jgk gS] mls ikuh fiyok;k x;k] fQj c;ku tkjh
j[kkA
11- fcykliqj esa fpeu flag ds lkFkh yksx tk pqds Fks] fdUrq fpeu flag pkj
& ikap fnu ogh gekjs xsLV gkml eas jgsA fpeu flag ls ckrs gksrh Fkh] rks og
crkrk Fkk fd og jktuSfrd dk;Z ds fy;s ogka vk;k gqvk gSaA vftr tksxh ,ao
vfer tksxh us mls jktfufrd dk;Z ds fy;s cqyk;s Fks] rc og vk;k Fkk] fdUrq
64mls xkMh ,oa iSlk oSxjgk ugh fey jgk gSA vkSj vfer tksxh] jksfgr izlkn ds
izHkko esa vk x;k gS] bl dkj.k mlds tksxh ifjokj dh o”kksZ dh fu”Bk O;FkZ tk jgh
gSA pkj&ikap fnu ckn fpeu flag Hkh eq>s fcuk dqN crk;s pyk x;k FkkA mu
yksxks dk leku ogha iM+k jg x;kA ckn esa uoEcj ds rhljs lIrkg vle ls dgh
fpeu flag dk Qksu esjs ikl vk;k] mlus dgk dh mu yksxks dk tks leku iMk gS]
mls vfer nkl uke dk vkneh ysus vk;sxk rks ns nsukA ckn esa vfer nkl leku
ysus vk;k Fkk] rc geus muds leku dks ns fn;k FkkA”
This witness was confronted with his statement made under
Section 164 on 27.05.2005 upon which he deposed as under:
“13- ;g dguk lgh gS fd gekjs fefVax jk;iqj ds xzhuikdZ gksVy esa Hkh gqbZ Fkh]
,Slk eSaus ukxiqj eas eftLVsªV lkgc dks fn;s x;s c;ku esa crk;k FkkA eq>s
vkt ;kn ugh gS fd lh0ch0vkbZ0 }kjk iqNrkN fd;s tkus ij eSaus gksVy xzhuikdZ
esa fefVax gksus crk;k Fkk ;k ughA ukxiqj eas eftLVs ªV lkgc ds le{k esjk c;ku
vaxzsth esa gqvk Fkk vkSj mlesa eSaus crk;k Fkk fd ebZ 2003 ds rhljs lIrkg esa
daVªhDyc eas gqbZ fefVax esa ,u0lh0ih0 ds jSyh dks **fMljIV** djus dh ;kstuk ij
fMLd’ku gqvk FkkA vkSj ml lq>ko dk eSaus fojks/k fd;k Fkk rFkk vfer ds ml
lq>ko dk liksVZ ;kg;k <scj ,oa vHk; xks;y us fd;k FkkA”
55. Raj Singh (PW-100) is also the school friend of accused-Amit Jogi. He
had accompanied Amit Jogi during election campaigns on earlier
occasion. While he was residing with Amit Jogi, he met with various
other accused persons. In his deposition, he stated as under:
“7- tc eSa fcykliqj TokbZu fd;k Fkk] mlds nks&rhu eghus ckn vfHk;qDr fpeu
flag Hkh ogka eq>ls feyus vk;k FkkA og dgrk Fkk fd gesa NRrhlx< esa gh lsVy
gksuk gS] vkSj ;gh O;kikj djsxkA vfHk;qDr fpeu flag tc igyh ckj esjs ikl
fcykliqj vk;s Fks] rks mlds ikl ,d cksysjks xkMh FkhA
8- ,u0lh0ih0 dh jSyh iwjs LVsV eas gks jgh FkhA vkdk’k pSuy ds vf/kdkjh;kas
dh fefVax esa tks ppkZ gksrh Fkh] mlesa ,u0lh0ih0 dh jSyh dks vlQy n’kkZus ds
fy;s [kkyh txgks dks dSejs ij doj djus vkfn ds lq>ko fn;s tkrs FksA jSyh;ksa
dks vlQy djus ds fy;s dbZ rjg ds lq>ko yksx nsrs FksA jSyh ds laca/k esa cMs
usrk dks cqyk dj ukp] xkus dk dk;Zdze djok ds HkhM+ dks m/kj f[kapus ds laca/k esa
lq>ko vk;s FksA”
This witness was confronted with his statement made under
Section 164 upon which he deposed as under:
65
“10- lk{kh dks mlds /kkjk & 164 n0iz0la0 ds rgr ntZ c;ku iznZ’k ih&91 ds
i`”B dzekad 2 ds nqljs iSjk ds okD; & **Vw LVkWi lp jSyht & & & lcVksftaax nh
jSyh** dks Ik<dj lquk;k x;k vkSj iqNk x;k fd ,Slk c;ku mlus eftLVs ªV lkgc
ds le{k fn;k Fkk] rks lk{kh us ;g Lohdkj fd;k fd mlus ,Slk c;ku fn;k FkkA
11- fpeu flag viuh Vhe ds lkFk pquko izpkj ds fy;s vkrk FkkA rFkk vfer
tksxh us esjh flQkfj’k rFkk fl)kFkZ fd flQkfj’k vdk’k pSuy dscy daiuh TokbZu
djus ds fy;s fd Fkh bl fy;s ge yksx NRrhlx< vk;s FksA lk{kh dks mlh c;ku
ds nqljs i`”B nqljk iSjk ds okD;ka’k & **gh foftV ,V NRrhlx<+** fd vkSj fnykus
ij lk{kh us ,Slk c;ku eftLVszV lkgc ds le{k nsuk crk;kA blh izdkj lk{kh
dks mlds vkxs dk c;ku dk v’ka & ** gh okWt & & & MwabZx lks ** dh vksj
fnykus ij mlus ,Slk c;ku eftLVsªV ds le{k nsuk Lohdkj fd;kA
13- mlds ckn eSa fcykliqj okil vk;k Fkk] fl}kFkZ us crk;k dh ftl fnu
eMZj gqvk Fkk] mlds ,d&nks fnu ckn fpeu flag Hkh vk;k Fkk vkSj mlds lkFk
nks&rhu vkSj yksx Hkh vk;s FksA vkSj ,d fpeu flag ds fjLrsnkj rFkk nks&rhu yksx
ds fy;s tkWc ds fy;s iz;k’k dj jgs Fks] vkSj ,d fnu :d dj pys x;s Fks A lk{kh
dk /;ku mlds /kkjk 164 n0iz0l0 ds c;ku i`”B 2 ds iSjk rhu ds ukSoha iaDrh ds
okD;ka’k ** fl}kFkZ VksYM eh & & & vkWylks ys¶V ** dh vkSj fnyk dj iqNus ij
lk{kh us ,Slk c;ku eftLVsªV ds le{k nsuk Lohdkj fd;k A fl}kFkZ us eq>s ;g Hkh
crk;k Fkk fd fpeu flag ogka :dk Fkk] rks ;g dg jgk Fkk fd mlus viuk dke
fd;k gS] fQj Hkh mldh enn ugh dj jgk gS vkSj mldks nh xbZ cksysjs xkM+h Hkh
okihl ys yh xbZ gSA
14- fpeu flag us ,Slh f’kdk;r eq>ls Hkh vizSy ekg esa vk;k Fkk] rc fd;k
FkkA lk{kh dk /;ku ml dh /kkj 164 n0iz0la0 ds varxZr ntZ c;ku ds vafre rhu
iaDrh;ksa ds okD;ka’k & ** nhl ,fVV~;wV & & & eMZj vkWQ tXXkh ** dh vksj fnyk
dj ;g iqNus ij dh mlus ,Slk c;ku eftLVsªV ds le{k fn;k Fkk] rks lk{kh us
lgh Lohdkj fd;k fd mlus ,Slk c;ku fn;k FkkA
20- ;g lgh gS fd ,u0lh0ih0 dh jSfy;k iwjs NRrhlx< txg&txg ij gks jgh
FkhA vkSj jSyht dks ysdj gekjh ehfVax esa ppkZ gksrh FkhA ;g dguk lgh gS fd
ebZ ds rhljs lIrkg esa daVªh Dyc jk;iqj esa gekjh ehfVax gqb FkhA ftlesa Hkh ppkZ
dk ,d fo”k; Fkk fd jSyh dks dSls vlQy gksuk fn[kk;k tk,A ;g lgh gS fd
ukxiqj esa eftLVsªV lkgc ds ikl fn;s x, c;ku esa tks eSaus **Vw LVki lp jSyht**
‘kCn dk bLrseky fd;k gS] mlls esjk vk’k; mu jSyh dks vlQy dSls fn[kk;k
tk,] ls FkkA ;g dguk xyr gS fd ehfVax esa jk”Vªh; Lrj ds usrkvksa
dks ,u0lh0ih0 NksMdj dkaxzsl esa dSls ‘kfey fd;k tk,] bl ij Hkh ppkZ gqbZ
FkhA”
56. Ajit Singh (PW-104) used to work in Park Hotel, Kolkata. On
66
17.05.2005, he was posted there as Manager. He has proved that
Rejinald Jeremiah (PW-85) stayed in the hotel 25.06.2003 to
29.06.2003. The relevant part of the deposition reads as under:
“2- ml fnu lh0ch0vkbZ ds vkf/kdkjh esjs ikl vkdj fnukad 25-06-2003 ls
29-06-2003 rd ikdZ gksVy esa Bgjus okys feLVj jsthukYM tsjsfe;k ds fcy ds
izfrfyfi ds ekax fd, Fks] rks EkSaus mUgsa mDRk fcy dh daI;wVj tsusjsVsM dkih iznku
fd;k FkkA mDr fcy pkj i`”Bksa esa gSa] ftls lh0ch0vkbZ okyksa us tIrh i=d iznZ’k
ih&96 ds vuqlkj eq>ls tIr fd;k FkkA tIrh i=d izn’kZ ih & 96 ds v ls v
Hkkx ij esjs gLrk{kj gSA tIr’kqnk fcy izn’kZ ih &96**, gS ftlds Ã…ij
lR;izfrfyfi izekf.kr djrs gq, eSaus v ls v Hkkx ij vius gLrk{kj fd;k FkkA
3- eSa vkt vius lkFk gksVy esa j[ks tkus okyk ;kf=;ksa ds ,jkboj fMikjpj
jftLVj dks eqyr% ys dj vk;k gwaA bl jftLVj izn’kZ ih& 97 ds i`”V dzekad 126
ij jsftukYM tsjsfe;k dk :e uacj& 314 esa Bgjus dh izo`f”V v ls v Hkkx ij gS
rFkk i`”B uacj & 138 ij muds gksVy NksMus laca/kh izof”V v ls v Hkkx ij gSA
bu nksuksa i`”Bksa dh QksVksdkih gksVy ds Qk;usal Mk;jsDVj }kjk izekf.kr gS] ftls
is’k dj jgk gwa] tks izn’kZ ih& 97 **lh** ,oea izn’kZ ih& 97 **lh** & 2 gSA ewy
jftLVj ls QksVksdkih dk feyu dj ewy jftLVj lk{kh dks okfil fd;k x;kA
4- eSa vkt ikdZ gksVy dk dS’k LVsVesaV jftLVj ewyr% vius lkFk ysdj vk;k
gwaA bl jftLVkj esa i`”B dzekad & 1701 ij Jh jsftukYM tsjsfe;k }kjk fnukad
25-06-2003 dks gksVy esa :e uacj & 314 esa Bgjus ij ,Mokal ds :i esa tek
djkbZ xbZ jkf’k ianzg gtkj #i;s dh izo`f”B gSA ewy jftLVj ij ogha izo`f”V izn’kZ
ih & 98 gSA lacfa/kr i`”B dh QksVksdkih izn’kZ ih & 98 **lh** gSA lacsaf/kr izo`f”V v
ls v Hkkx ij gSA ewy ls QksVksdkih dk feyu dj ewy lk{kh dks okfil fd;k
x;kA”
57. Vishnu Prasad Thakur (PW-105) is the employee of Ajay Travels. He
has proved the Air Tickets (Exhibit P/69, P/70 and P/71) issued in favour
of Reginald Jeremiah (PW-85) which were from Raipur to
Bhubaneshwar and Kolkata to Gauhati and return from Kolkata.
58. Rohit Prasad (PW-126), is also one of the founder member of Akash
Channel which was started in the month of October, 2002 in
Chhattisgarh. He was acquainted with Chiman Singh also. This witness
stated that Chiman Singh and the then Chief Minister had good relations.
67
He stated that Chiman Singh was residing at Batra House which
belonged to Yahya Dhebar and Chiman Singh was staying in the said
place on being instructed by the then Chief Minister. The relevant part of
the deposition reads as under:
“4- c=k gkml jk;iqj eas vkdk’k pSuy ds djhc 15 vkneh tks fnYyh ls vk;s
gq;s Fks] og LFkk;h :i ls jgrs Fks rFkk vU; deZpkjh yksx ckgj ls vkrs Fks] os Hkh
ogka :dk djrs FksA c=k gkml ;kg;k <scj dk FkkA ;kg;k <scj rFkk mlds
HkkbZ ,tkt <sCkj dks tkurk gwaA ,tkt <scj ml le; NRrhlx<+ ,u0,l0;w0vkbZ0
dk fizflaMsV FkkA eSaus ;kg;k <scj dks ;g dgk Fkk fd ;fn fpeu flag c=k gkml
esa :dus ds fy;s vkrk gS] rks mls dgs fd ;g vdk’k pSuy ds deZpkfj;ksa ds fy;s
gS vkSj mls ogka u :dus nsA eSaus ;kg;k <scj ls fpeu flag ds ckjs es iwNk Fkk]
rc ;kg;k <scj us crk;k Fkk fd fpeu flag ds laca/k eas dkaxsz’k ikVhZ lh0,e0
gkml ls muds ikl Qksu vk;k Fkk fd fpeu flag ds :dus dk barktke djus esa
enn dj nsosaA
6- ;g lgh gS fd lh0ch0vkbZ0 okyks us eq>ls iwNrkN djds c;ku fy;k FkkA
;g dguk lgh gS fd eSaus lh0ch0vkbZ0 dks c;ku nsrs le; ;g dgk Fkk fd feLVj
jkt voLFkh tksxh QSefy dks igys ls tkurk Fkk vkSj muds lkFk fudV lg;ksx
j[krk FkkA ;g lgh gS fd eSaus lh0ch0vkbZ0 dks c;ku nsrs le; ;g crk;k Fkk fd
eSa jk;iqj vkrk FkkA rc vfer tksxh ds lkFk fMuj vkfn esa feyrk Fkk] rc mlds
lkFk fl}kFkZ vlkVh] eks{k flUgk] uouhr tks’kh] HkwisUnz flag] jkt voLFkh] jktohj
flag] yo dqekj feJk] ekbZdy fofy;El] vtqZu Hkxr] jsftukYM tsjsfe;k vkSj
jk;iqj ds fuoklh vHk; xks;y] ;kg;k <scj vkfn mifLFkr jgrs FksA fMuj vkfn
dk dk;Zdze daVªh Dyc veszjksfdf’k;k jsLVksjsaV] xzhu okdZ Dyc vkfn LFkkuks esa gqvk
djrk FkkA
7 eSaus lh0ch0vkbZ0 dks ,slk c;ku ugh fn;k Fkk fd ,d fefVax eas fo|kpj.k
‘kqDy dh jSyh dks ckf/kr djus ds laca/k esa ppkZ gqbZ Fkh] ftleas eS mifLFkr Fkk eSaus
lh0ch0vkbZ0 dks ;g c;ku fn;k Fkk fd ,d fefVax eas vfer tksxh ds nksLrks
ds }kjk jSyh dks fMLVZc djus ds laca/k esa fofHkUu lq>ko fn;s Fks ftuesa ifjokgu
thi dsk can djus dk lq>ko ‘kkehy Fkk vkSj eSaus vdk’k pSuy izfruhf/k ds :i esa
jSyh ls lacaf/kr lekpkjksa ds dojst dks jksdus ds fy;s dgk Fkk rFkk vfer
tksxh] ;kg;k <ascj us fu.kkZ; fd;k Fkk fd ,u0lh0ih0 ds usrk ftlesa jkekorkj
tXxh ‘kkfey gS] dks gj dher ij jksdk tk;s] ftlesa HkSfrd cy }kjk jksduk Hkh
‘kkfey gSA
8 eq>s vkt ;kn ugha gS fd eSaus lh0ch0vkbZ dks c;ku nsrs le; ;g dgk Fkk
fd 2003 eas fpeu flag eq> ls fey dj ;g dgk Fkk fd mls vfer tksxh us
68jktfufrd dk;Z ds fy;s cqyk;k gSA ;g lgh gS fd eSaus fpeu flag dks dgk Fkk fd
og fHkykbZ {ks= dk losZ djsa vkSj og fHkykbZ x;k Hkh FkkA fdUrq mlus vkxs D;k
fd;k eq>s irk ugh gSA eSaus lh0ch0vkbZ0 dks c;ku nsrs le; ;g ugh dgk Fkk fd
mUgsa usa fpeu flag dks vdk’k pSuy esa dke nsus ls badkj dj fn;k Fkk eSaus
lh0ch0vkbZ0 dks c;ku ugh fn;k Fkk fd eSaus fpeu flag dh ;g dgk Fkk fd og
vkSj mlds vkneh iwjs fnu ‘kjkc firss gS vkSj dke djus ds LFkku ij leL;k [kMh
djrs gS blfy, eq>s mldh vkSj mlds vknfe;ksa dh vko’;drk ugha gSA eSaus
lh0ch0vkbZ0 dks c;ku nsrs le; ;g ugh crk;k Fkh fd fpeu flag ds fHkykbZ ls
ySVus ds ckn eq>s Kkr gqvk fd og c=k gkml esa] tgka vdk’k pSuy ds LVkWQ
jgrk gS ogka :dk gS rc eSa ;kg;k <scj ls iwNk Fkk fd fpeu flag ogka D;wa Bgj
jgk gS] rc ;kg;k <scj us eq>ls dgk Fkk fd mls vftr tksxh ls ,d dkWy izkIr
gqvk gS] ftlesa fpeu falga ,oa mlds vknfe;ksa ds Bgjkus ds fy, dgk x;k FkkA
12- eSa jaftr cqljh dks vius Ldqy ds fnukas ls gh tkurk gwa A vkSj mlls esjh
vDlj eqykdkrs gksrh jgrh gS ge vPNs nksLr gSA ;g lgh gS fd eSus fnYyh esa
eftLVsªV lkgc dks c;ku nsrs le; ;g dgk Fkk fd ebZ 2003 ds izFke lIrkg esa
fpeu flag esjs ikl vkdj dgk Fkk fd mldks vfer tksxh us jk;iqj cqyk;k gS
vkSj fpeu flag us dgk Fkk fd og c=k gkml esa Bgjk gS] tgka vdk’k pSuy ds
vU; deZpkjh jgrs gSA eSaus eftLVs ªV lkgc dks ;g Hkh crk;k Fkk fd eSaus ;kg;k
<scj ls tks fd c=k gkml dk Lokeh gS] ls ;g iwNk Fkk fd fpeu flag dk mlds
lkFkh c=k gkml esa Dw;a Bkgjs gS] rc ;kg;k <scj ;g dgk Fkk fd vfer tksxh us
mlls fpeu flag vkSj mlds LkkFkh;ksa ds fy, jgus dh O;oLFkk djus dks dgk FkkA
;g lgh gS fd eSaus eftLVsªV lkgc dks izn’kZ ih & 119 c ls c fpUgkafdr va’k **
feLVjvfer tksxh & & & n bULVªD’ku ** dk dFku fn;k FkkA lk{kh us c ls c
fpUgkfdar v’ka dks i<dj ,slk dFku nsuk Lohdkj fd;kA
13- ,0ch0lh0 iCyhflVh ds uke ls [kjhnh xbZ cksysjks okgu flyoj dyj dh
Fkh] mldk uacj vkt eq>s ;kn ugha gSA o”kZ 2003 esa gekjs ikl 6 cksysjks xkMh;ka
FkhA ftuesa ls ,d ,0ch0lh0 iCyhflVh ds uke ls FkhA ;g lgh gS fd eSaus fnYyh
ds eftLVsªV lkgc ds le{k izn’kZ ih & 119 ds l ls l fpUgkafdr v’ka **
vkbZ ;wTM Vw & & & xzhu ikdZ gksVy ** dk dFku fn;k Fkk vkSj ;g v’ka esjs
crk;s vuqlkj fy[kk x;k gSA ;g lgh gS fd eSus eftLVszV ds le{k c;ku esa izn’kZ
ih& 119 dk M ls M fpUgkafdr v’ka ** le VkbZe & & & QkWj fnloj** dk laiw.kZ
dFku fn;k Fkk A lk{kh dks M ls M v’ka i< dj lquk dj iwNus ij mlus ,slk
dFku nsuk Lohdkj fd;kA
14- ;g lgh gS fd eSaus izn’kZ ih & 119 dk bZ ls bZ fpUgkafdr va’k ** vkWu vkj
,jkmaM & & & bu fcVfou ** dk dFku eftLVsªV lkgc fd le{k fn;k Fkk
vkSj ;g laiw.kZ iSjk esjs crk;s vuqlkj gh fy[kk x;k gSA ;g lgh gS fd eSaus
69eftLVsªV lkgc ds le{k c;ku nsrs le; mUgsa ;g crk;k Fkk dh twu 2003 ds var
,oa tqykbZ ds izFke lIrkg esa blh le; vfer tksxh us fnYyh esa eq>s 5
yk[k :i;s ;kg;k <scj dks jk;iqj esa nsus ds fy;s dg dj fn;k Fkk] bu :i;ksa dks
eSa ;kg;k <scj dks ns fn;k FkkA ;g lgh gS fd eSa us eftLVs ªV lkgc dks c;ku nsrs
le; izn’kZ ih& 119 dk Q ls Q va’k ** vkbZ dse Vw & & & iksfyfVDy fMLd’ku
** dk dFku fn;k FkkA lk{kh dks mDr va’k i< dj lquk;s tkus ij mlus ,slk
c;ku nsuk Lohdkj fd;kA ;g lgh gS fd eq>s fnYyh esa okgu dh vko’;drk gqbZ
rks eSaus ;kg;k <scj dks jk;iqj esa esjs pkj cksysjks okgu esa ls ,d cksysjks xkMh Hkstus
ds fy;s dgk Fkk] rc ;kg;k <scj us ,d flyoj cksysjks okgu uacj & 3835 dks
fnYyh Hkstk Fkk] tks okgu ckn esa lh0ch0vkbZ0 }kjk tIr fd xbZ gS ;g dguk
dguk lgh gS fd ;g cksysjks okgu uacj & 3835 Jh jaftr cqljh dh QSDVzh ls
tIr gqbZ Fkh vkSj jaftr dks og okgu eSaus gh fn;k FkkA”
59. In the memorandum statement (Exhibit P/26) of accused-Chiman Singh
which has been proved by B.K.G.Naidu (PW-20), Chiman Singh has
stated that he was associated with the then Chief Minister and father of
accused-Amit Jogi as political worker. He was called by Amit Jogi over
ph one and asked to come to Raipur. He met Amit Jogi where he was
introduced to Abhay Goyal, Yahya Dhebar, Ejaj Dhebar, Rohit Prasad.
He was instructed by Amit Jogi that he has to perform the works as
directed by Abhay Goyal, Rohit Prsad and Yahya Dhebar. He was
instructed to keep an eye on four persons belonging to NCP and that if
required, he will have to threaten them also.
60. Mahant @ Bultu Pathak (PW-64), one of the approver, in his deposition
before the learned trial Court, has stated as under:
“12& lw;Zdkar frokjh us lqjs’k flag dks cqyokdj ;g crk;k Fkk fd mu yM+dksa
dks cukjl Hkst nks] ogha ls bUgsa fxjQ~rkj djokuk gSA lw;Zdkar frokjh us lqjs’k
flag dks bl dke ds fy, rhuksa yM+ds fouksn flag] vkuan dqekj vkSj ckcw mQZ
tkeoar dks ianzg yk[k :i;s nsus ds fy, lqjs’k flag dks fn;k Fkk] ml le; lqjs’k
flag us ;g dgk Fkk fd bruk T;knk :i;s bu yksxksa dks D;ksa ns jgs gks] tc 4&6
eghus esa NqM+k ysuk gS] blls vPNk ftlus gR;k dh gS mls gh bruk :i;k ns nks
vkSj mlh dks tsy Hkstdj NqM+k yksA rc lw;Zdkar frokjh us ;g dgk fd os cM+s
yksx gSa vkSj lkgc ds utnhdh yksx gSa] blesa ge yksxksa dks QthZ eqyfte gh
70izLrqr djuk gS] ugha rks lkgc dk vk tk;sxkA lw;Zdkar frokjh Jh vthr tksxh
lkgc cksyrs Fks vkSj vfer tksxh dks dHkh NksVs ljdkj rks dHkh lkgc cksyrs FksA
vfer tksxh vkt U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr gSA”
61. Further, from perusal of another approver, namely Suresh Singh (PW-
65), it transpires that the investigation conducted by the State Police
prior to the introduction of the CBI was nothing but an attempt to take the
entire investigation into a wrong track so as to give a safe passage to the
real assailants.
62. A perusal of the testimonies of Madan Singh (PW-59), Patras Khalkho
(PW-96), Prem Bahadur Gurung (PW-102), Kameshwar Baghel (PW-
92), and R.S. Nayak (PW-87), all of whom were posted on security duty
at the CM House, indicates that they have, in one form or another, stated
that individuals such as Chiman Singh, Surya Kant Tiwari, Law Kumar
Mishra, Moksh Sinha, Raj Awasthi, Abhay Goyal, and Yahya Dhebar
were among those who used to visit the CM House. However, they have
also categorically deposed that numerous other persons frequently
visited the premises as well.
63. From perusal of the deposition made by Reginald Jeremiah (PW-85) it is
amply clear that he was acquainted with Amit Jogi from their time as
students at St. Stephen’s College, Delhi. According to him, on
21.05.2003, Amit Jogi called him to Green Park Hotel, where a meeting
was held to discuss plans to sabotage an NCP rally. He confirmed the
presence of several individuals, including Rohit Prasad, Raj Awasthi,
Moksh Sinha, Arjun Bhagat, Michale Williams, Raj Singh, Bhupinder
Singh, Navnit Joshi, Siddharth Asati, Abhay Goyal, and Yahya Dhebar.
During the meeting, Amit Jogi suggested eliminating Balwinder Jaggi,
Pramod Choubey, and another individual associated with the NCP. PW-
85, along with a few others, objected and urged him not to harm anyone,
71
but Amit Jogi ignored their objections. He has further stated that Amit
Jogi asked who had called Chiman Singh to the hotel. When Chiman
Singh arrived, all others were asked to leave the room, leaving only Amit
Jogi, Rohit Prasad, and Chiman Singh inside. Similarly, Siddharth Asati
(PW-97), who was also associated with Akash Channel in 2003,
corroborated the occurrence of this meeting and confirmed the presence
of the accused persons. He has stated that he had recorded his
statement (Exhibit P/87) before a Magistrate in Nagpur. He mentioned
that he frequently met Amit Jogi in Delhi and later joined Akash Channel
in Raipur at his request. He described that meetings of Akash Channel
officials were held at Country Club and Dhebar House, attended by
individuals such as Raj Singh (PW-100), Navneet Joshi, Moksh Sinha,
Bhupendra Singh, Rohit Prasad, and Raj Awasthi. During this time, the
NCP had been formed in Chhattisgarh, and efforts were being made to
portray its rally as unsuccessful. He deposed that Amit Jogi, Yahya
Dhebar, and Abhay Goyal were actively involved in plans to disrupt the
rally, which he opposed. He further stated that in the third or fourth week
of May 2003, Chiman Singh came to Bilaspur seeking accommodation
for political work. Siddharth Asati arranged a guest house for him, where
5-6 other individuals also stayed. After the incident involving the
deceased, the others left, but Chiman Singh remained for 4-5 days.
Chiman Singh allegedly told him that he had come on the instructions of
Amit Jogi and Ajit Jogi but had not been provided with financial or
logistical support. He also expressed dissatisfaction, stating that Amit
Jogi was influenced by Rohit Prasad. Later, Chiman Singh left Bilaspur
without notice, leaving behind his belongings. In November, Siddharth
received a call from him from Assam requesting that his belongings be
handed over to one Amit Das. Siddharth also admitted that in his earlier
72
statement before the Magistrate, he had mentioned a meeting at Country
Club in May 2003 regarding disrupting the NCP rally, where Amit Jogi’s
proposal was supported by Yahya Dhebar and Abhay Goyal.
64. Raj Singh (PW-100), who had known Amit Jogi since school days,
stated that he first met Chiman Singh in 1995 at Amit Jogi’s residence in
Delhi. He explained that Raj Awasthi was seeking business associates
for Akash Channel, leading to the involvement of individuals like
Siddharth Asati, Moksh Sinha, Reginald Jeremiah (PW-85), and
Navneet Joshi. He described how strategies were devised to disrupt the
NCP rally and portray it as a failure. In his statement under Section 164
Cr.P.C., he mentioned that Chiman Singh was provided with a Bolero
vehicle by Yahya for political activities. After the murder of the deceased,
Chiman Singh reportedly told Siddharth that he had “done the work” but
was no longer receiving support, and his vehicle had been taken back.
Raj Singh inferred from this behavior that Chiman Singh had been
involved in wrongdoings.
65. 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. In the absence
of any material inconsistency, contradiction, or specific exculpatory
circumstance distinguishing his case from that of the convicted co-
accused, such an acquittal would be inherently incongruous and legally
unsustainable. It is particularly significant that the main accused is often
73
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. To hold
otherwise would result in a manifest inconsistency, whereby the
substratum of the prosecution case is accepted for some accused while
being rejected for another, without any rational basis. Such an approach
undermines the principle of parity and erodes the logical coherence of
judicial findings. Moreover, criminal courts are obligated to ensure that
findings are not only legally sound but also internally consistent.
Selective appreciation or rejection of evidence, without assigning cogent
and convincing reasons, amounts to arbitrariness and vitiates the
judgment. If no distinguishing feature, such as absence from the scene,
lack of participation, credible alibi, or material contradictions in testimony
vis-Ã -vis the main accused is brought on record, the grant of acquittal to
him alone would amount to a perverse finding. It would suggest either
misappreciation of evidence or an erroneous application of legal
principles, thereby occasioning a failure of justice. Thus, in such
circumstances, 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. In the absence of such
justification, the only logical and legally permissible conclusion would be
to extend the same finding of guilt to the principal accused, so as to
preserve consistency, fairness, and the integrity of the judicial process.
66. Upon a comprehensive evaluation of the foregoing analysis, this Court is
of the considered view that the findings recorded by the learned Special
74
Judge, insofar as they relate to the acquittal of the accused, Amit Jogi,
are erroneous and not borne out by the evidence on record. On the
contrary, from the entire evidence, 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 learned trial Court
has not assigned any reason to distinguish the case of the accused-Amit
Jogi with that of other conspirators.
67. It is pertinent to note that the learned trial Court, by judgment dated
31.05.2007 in Sessions Trial No. 334/2003, acquitted the accused–
Vinod Singh @ Badal, Shyam Sundar @ Anand Sharma, Jambwant
Kashyap, Avinash Singh @ Lallan, and Vishwanath Rajbhar, who had
allegedly impersonated the assailants. However, the manner in which
the offence was conceived, coordinated, and executed unmistakably
reflects a well-entrenched and centrally directed conspiracy. The
orchestration of such a sophisticated and high-level organized crime,
particularly one involving imposters, pre-planned execution, and
apparent compromise of the State Police machinery could not have been
possible without the active involvement, guidance, and protection of a
person wielding considerable influence and authority. In this backdrop,
the role of accused-Amit Jogi assumes critical significance. The material
on record, when appreciated holistically, points towards his position not
75
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.
68. It is pertinent to note that the learned Trial Judge has unnecessarily
attempted to distinguish the role of accused-Amit Jogi from that of the
other co-accused/convicts. The finding that the co-accused acted
independently to please Amit Jogi, without his knowledge, and in a
manner not contemplated by him, is unsustainable. On the contrary, the
evidence indicates that the plan to eliminate the NCP office bearers
originated from Amit Jogi himself. Therefore, the distinction drawn by the
learned Trial Judge is artificial, unwarranted, and devoid of merit.
69. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the considered opinion
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. As such,
the judgment dated 31.05.2007 passed in Sessions Trial No. 329/2005
by the learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Raipur, so far it relates to the
acquittal of the accused-Amit Jogi, being untenable, is liable to be and
is accordingly set aside. The accused-Amit Jogi is also liable to be
convicted and awarded sentence as has been awarded to the other
76
convicts, namely Chiman Singh, Yahya Dhebar, Abhay Goyal and Feroz
Sidhiquie.
70. Accordingly, the accused-Amit Jogi @ Amit Aishwarya Jogi, is held
guilty and is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read
with Section 120-B of the IPC and is sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.1,000/-, and in default thereof, to
undergo additional six months of rigorous imprisonment.
71. Resultantly, ACQA No. 66/2026, filed by the appellant-CBI stands
allowed. The revision petition being CRR No. 434/2007, filed by the
complainant-Satish Jaggi, also stands disposed of. Since we have
already affirmed the conviction and sentence awarded to other
accused/convicts in Cr.A. No. 426/2007 and other connected appeals
vide judgment dated 04.04.2024, the revision petition being CRR No.
232/2008, filed by the complainant-Satish Jaggi, is dismissed as
having become infructuous.
72. Consequently, the application(s) pending if any, also stand disposed of.
73. It is stated that the accused-Amit Jogi @ Amit Aishwarya Jogi is on bail.
His bail bonds shall remain operative for a period of three weeks from
today during which period he shall surrender before the concerned trial
Court, failing which the learned trial Court shall take him into custody
and send him to jail for serving out the sentence as has been awarded
by this Court.
74. The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the
respondent No. 1/accused- Amit Jogi @ Amit Aishwarya Jogi, informing
him of his right to challenge the present judgment before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, either independently or with legal assistance from the
77
High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal
Services Committee.
75. The Registrar (Judicial) is also directed that a certified copy of this
judgment, along with the original trial Court records, be transmitted to
the concerned Trial Court for information and necessary action, if any,
within a period of one week from today.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha)
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Amit
AMIT
KUMAR
DUBEY
Digitally signed
by AMIT KUMAR
DUBEY
Date: 2026.04.06
09:48:55 +0530
78
Head Note
An artificial distinction cannot be drawn in favour of a particular accused when
all are charged with participation in a common offence. Where the prosecution
case rests on the same set of evidence against all accused, it would be
impermissible to acquit one accused while convicting the others on that very
evidence, unless a strong and compelling case for acquittal is independently
made out in favour of such accused.