Chhattisgarh High Court Convicts Amit Jogi in 2003 Ram Avtar Jaggi Murder Case, Orders Surrender Within Three Weeks

The case dates

back to 2003, when businessman-turned-politician Ram Avtar Jaggi was murdered in Raipur. At the time of the incident, Ajit Jogi was serving as the Chief Minister of the state.

In 2007, a special court of the Central Bureau of Investigation had convicted 28 individuals in connection with the case. However, Amit Jogi was acquitted after being granted the benefit of doubt. The CBI challenged this acquittal in the High Court, but the appeal was initially dismissed on the grounds of delay. Subsequently, the agency approached the Supreme Court of India, which condoned the delay and, in November last year, remitted the matter back to the High Court for reconsideration.

Following this, on March 2, 2026, the High Court convicted Amit Jogi and ordered him to surrender within three weeks.

Reacting to the verdict, Amit Jogi told news agency ANI that while the High Court had accepted the CBI’s appeal, he was not given an opportunity to be heard during the proceedings. He stated that convicting a person, who had earlier been acquitted by a trial court, without hearing his arguments was against the principles of “natural justice.” He maintained that despite these developments, he retains full faith in the judicial system.

Jogi further alleged that he was subjected to grave injustice, asserting that while the lower court had provided him an opportunity to present his case, the High Court did not allow him to speak. He also stated that the matter is already pending before the Supreme Court, where he expects a fair hearing.

Highlighting procedural concerns, Jogi said the trial court had acquitted him after considering his arguments, whereas the High Court concluded proceedings within a very short time. He noted that the hearing in the High Court was completed in just four days, despite the CBI’s appeal consisting of approximately 12,000 pages. According to him, it was practically difficult to study such an extensive record and present an effective argument within such a limited timeframe. He added that despite requesting additional time, he was not given an adequate opportunity to present his case.

The High Court’s decision marks a pivotal turn in a case that has spanned over two decades, raising critical questions around judicial process, procedural fairness, and the interpretation of natural justice in high-profile criminal appeals.