Legal Review and Analysis of State of Chhattisgarh vs Amit Aishwarya Jogi 2025 INSC 1285

In-Short

Case: State of Chhattisgarh vs Amit Aishwarya JogiCitation: 2025 INSC 1285The Supreme Court condones CBI's delay in appealing an acquittal in a murder case, remanding it for merits hearing, while dismissing appeals by the State and the victim as non-maintainable.

1. Heading of the Judgment

Case Name: State of Chhattisgarh vs Amit Aishwarya Jogi
Citation: 2025 INSC 1285
Court: Supreme Court of India
Jurisdiction: Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction
Decided on: November 06, 2025
Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Mehta

2. Related Laws and Legal Provisions

The judgment primarily interprets the following statutory provisions concerning appeals against acquittal:

• Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): Deals with appeals against acquittal.
  Sub-section (1): Empowers the State Government to direct the Public Prosecutor to file an appeal from an order of acquittal.
  Sub-section (2): Empowers the Central Government to direct the filing of an appeal in two specific classes of cases:
  (i) Cases investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI).
  (ii) Cases investigated by any other agency under a Central Act.

• Proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC: Grants a victim the right to prefer an appeal against an order of acquittal.

• Precedent Relied Upon:
  Lalu Prasad Yadav and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Anr., (2010) 5 SCC 1 (A three-Judge Bench decision)
  Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) represented through LRs v. State of Karnataka and Ors., (2019) 2 SCC 752

3. Basic Details of the Case

• Origin: These criminal appeals arose from Special Leave Petitions challenging the orders of the Chhattisgarh High Court.

• Core Factual Background: The case involved a political murder. The respondent, Amit Aishwarya Jogi (son of a former Chief Minister), was acquitted by the trial court. Dissatisfied, the State of Chhattisgarh, the CBI, and the de-facto complainant (the victim's son) sought to appeal against this acquittal.

• High Court's Ruling: The High Court dismissed all applications:
  The State's appeal was held non-maintainable based on the Lalu Prasad Yadav precedent.
  The de-facto complainant's appeal was held non-maintainable as the right under Section 372 CrPC was not retrospective.
  The CBI's appeal was dismissed on the grounds of delay.

4. Core Principle and Analysis of the Judgment

A. The Central Issue

The Supreme Court was tasked with deciding the correctness of the High Court's rejection of the appeals against acquittal on technical grounds, primarily revolving around the interpretation of Section 378 of the CrPC and the applicability of the Lalu Prasad Yadav precedent.

B. The Supreme Court's Reasoning and Holdings

i. On the State of Chhattisgarh's Appeal: Upholding the Lalu Prasad Yadav Precedent
The Court conducted a thorough analysis of the three-Judge Bench decision in Lalu Prasad Yadav. It reaffirmed the principle of "mutually exclusive division" under Section 378 of the CrPC.

• The Law: In cases investigated by a central agency like the CBI [falling under Section 378(2)], the competent authority to file an appeal against acquittal is the Central Government. The right of the State Government to file an appeal under Section 378(1) is expressly excluded for such cases.

• Application to the Case: Since the CBI eventually investigated and filed the chargesheet in this case, the State of Chhattisgarh's appeal was correctly held to be non-maintainable by the High Court. The Supreme Court saw no reason to deviate from the settled law in Lalu Prasad Yadav and thus dismissed the State's appeal.

ii. On the De-facto Complainant's (Victim's) Appeal: The Non-Retrospectivity of Victim's Rights
The Court addressed the appeal filed by the victim (de-facto complainant) under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC.

• The Law: Relying on Mallikarjun Kodagali, the Court held that the victim's right to appeal is a substantive right that applies only to orders of acquittal passed on or after December 31, 2009, when this provision came into force.

• Application to the Case: The acquittal in this case was rendered on May 31, 2007, which was before the crucial date. Therefore, the victim had no right to file an appeal at that time. Consequently, the High Court was correct in dismissing the victim's appeal, and the Supreme Court upheld this decision.

iii. On the CBI's Appeal: Condoning Delay for Substantive Justice
This was the central relief granted by the Supreme Court. The Court took a pragmatic view of the CBI's application, which was dismissed by the High Court due to a delay of 1373 days.

• The Court's Reasoning:
  Gravity of Offence: The allegations involved a serious conspiracy leading to murder.
  Interest of Justice: The Court emphasized that cases of such grave nature should not be thwarted on mere technicalities like delay.
  Explanation for Delay: The CBI's bona fide belief that the State was pursuing the appeal was considered.

• The Holding: The Supreme Court condoned the inordinate delay in filing by the CBI. It set aside the High Court's order and remanded the CBI's application for leave to appeal back to the High Court for a fresh consideration on its merits. The Court also directed that the respondent (Amit Jogi), the State, and the de-facto complainant be given an opportunity to be heard during these proceedings.

5. Final Outcome and Directions

The Supreme Court disposed of the cluster of appeals with the following conclusive holdings:

1. State's Appeal Dismissed: The appeal filed by the State of Chhattisgarh was dismissed as non-maintainable, upholding the precedent in Lalu Prasad Yadav.

2. Victim's Appeal Dismissed: The appeal filed by the de-facto complainant (victim) was dismissed as the right under Section 372 CrPC is not retrospective.

3. CBI's Appeal Allowed: The delay in filing the appeal by the CBI was condoned. The matter was remitted to the High Court to decide the CBI's application for leave to appeal against the acquittal on its merits.

6. (MCQs) Based on the Judgment

MCQ 1: As per the Supreme Court's judgment in State of Chhattisgarh vs Amit Aishwarya Jogi (2025 INSC 1285), in a case where the investigation has been conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), who is the competent authority to file an appeal against an order of acquittal?
a) The State Government
b) The de-facto complainant (victim)
c) The Central Government
d) Both the State Government and the Central Government

MCQ 2: The Supreme Court condoned the delay in the CBI's appeal and remanded the matter to the High Court primarily based on which of the following reasons?
a) The CBI provided a flawless explanation for the delay.
b) The State Government supported the CBI's application.
c) The grave nature of the allegations demanded that the case be heard on merits, not rejected on a technicality.
d) The de-facto complainant pleaded for a hearing on merits.