The Punjab and Haryana High Court acquitted Dera Sacha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh in the 2002 murder case of journalist Ram Chander Chhatrapati. The Court observed that the CBI appeared to have coerced a key witness and said Ram Rahim’s guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has acquitted Dera Sacha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh in the 2002 murder case of journalist Ram Chander Chhatrapati, observing that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) appeared to have coerced a key witness into implicating the controversial godman.
The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Vikram Aggarwal. The High Court’s detailed decision, which was made public on Monday, overturned the 2018 trial court judgment that had convicted Ram Rahim of criminal conspiracy and sentenced him to life imprisonment in connection with the murder.
The Bench closely examined the testimony of Khatta Singh, who was the only witness linking Ram Rahim to the alleged conspiracy. The Court noted that the witness had remained silent for several years after the incident and later changed his position multiple times during the investigation and trial.
The judges remarked that Khatta Singh had “chosen to remain silent for a number of years and kept on tossing from one side to the other “like a ping pong ball.”” The Court also rejected the argument that he was unable to speak earlier because of threats from the Dera.
In its strong observations about the investigation, the Court stated that the witness may have been pressured by the investigating agency itself. The Bench said,
“This Court will not hesitate in holding that on the contrary, it appears that he was coerced by CBI into making a statement as CBI was under pressure to conclude the investigation [from High Court]. It was so stated by Khatta Singh in many of his applications. It is a matter of grave concern that a premier Investigating Agency adopted this kind of methodology with a view to succeed in the matter. The endeavour should have been to go to the bottom of the matter and bring out the truth.”
While discussing the social context of the case, the High Court also reflected on the influence of public figures and religious leaders in India. The Bench noted that individuals with large followings often attract both supporters and critics.
“Such public figures are always in the news. At times for good reasons and at times for bad ones. It is well known that A1 (Ram Rahim) has a huge following. In our country, religion, caste, sects, play an extremely important role. Lives are given and taken in the name of religion, caste, sects etc. Disputes on Temples, Masjids, Gurudwaras, are not something new for us. Many of the followers of faiths, sects etc., can be termed to be `fanatics’,”
the Bench further said.
The Court also pointed out that the trial court had not adequately examined whether there was strong evidence directly connecting Ram Rahim to the murder or whether the crime could have been carried out independently by his followers.
The judges observed that the lower court should have carefully considered whether the killing was the result of actions taken by loyal followers acting on their own.
”Notably, there was no discussion on this aspect,”
the Bench said.
After examining the evidence on record, the High Court concluded that the three other accused persons—whose appeals were dismissed earlier—were responsible for the murder and had carried out the act on their own.
The Court also addressed the impact of intense media coverage on high-profile criminal cases and emphasized that courts must remain guided only by law and evidence.
“It is often said that Courts and Judges should not be swayed by media reports and the public attention which a matter receives. Matters are required to be decided strictly as per law. It has to be borne in mind that the principles of criminal jurisprudence require proving the guilt of an accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is well settled that the moment a doubt arises, its benefit has to go to the accused,”
the Bench said.
The High Court also revisited the background of the case. In 2002, the Punjab and Haryana High Court had taken suo motu cognizance of an anonymous letter alleging sexual abuse of women followers by the Dera chief.
During the proceedings in that case, the son of journalist Ram Chander Chhatrapati filed a petition demanding a proper investigation into his father’s murder. He claimed that his father was shot dead because he had been publishing reports about activities at the Dera Sacha Sauda.
Following these developments, the investigation into the murder was transferred to the CBI.
The High Court further noted that in April 2007 it had criticized the CBI for the slow progress of the investigation. The agency then assured the Court that it would complete the probe within a specified time frame.
The Bench recorded that
“An undertaking was given by CBI that the investigation would be concluded by 25.05.2007. On 28.05.2007, CBI made a statement before the High Court that field investigation was over and the charge sheet would be filed by 31.07.2007. Till this time also, the name of A1 (Ram Rahim) had not surfaced.”
However, the situation changed shortly afterward when the statement of Khatta Singh was recorded by the CBI, nearly five years after the murder. According to the Court, it was only at that stage that Ram Rahim was named as an accused in the case.
“On 21.06.2007, the statement of Khatta Singh was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex.PW31/A). It is at this point of time that Khatta Singh, for the first time, almost 5 years after the incident, alleged that on 23.10.2002, he had travelled with A1 (Ram Rahim) to Jalandhar for a Satsang and when they returned to the Dera in the evening, A2 to A4 showed him the Pura Sach publication of 23.10.2002 which provoked A1 and at this stage, he directed A2 to A4 to eliminate Ram Chander Chhatrapati,”
the Bench said.
During the trial, Khatta Singh later turned hostile and accused the CBI of pressuring him to give the earlier statement. Years later, in 2017, after Ram Rahim was convicted in rape cases, he filed another application supporting the prosecution’s version.
The High Court noted that the trial court failed to examine whether the witness was trustworthy in light of these contradictions.
The Bench also pointed out serious gaps in the prosecution’s case. It observed that the police officer who had recorded the dying declaration of Ram Chander Chhatrapati at PGI Rohtak was not examined during the trial, even though his testimony could have been extremely important.
The Court said the statement of the victim itself was also not produced before the trial court, which raised serious questions about the completeness of the prosecution’s evidence.
However, the Bench clarified that it could not automatically be assumed that the omission was done deliberately to protect Ram Rahim.
“It is extremely strange that this very important witness was given up by the prosecution as
being unnecessary’. One could still have understood had the witness been given up as having beenwon over’. In the considered opinion of this Court, he was the most important witness,”
it added.
The judges also found it unusual that the prosecution had not sought a medical opinion from the doctor treating the journalist regarding whether he was fit to give a statement when he was reported to be stable in the hospital shortly before his death.
After considering all the evidence and the weaknesses in the investigation and prosecution case, the High Court concluded that Ram Rahim’s guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt and therefore he was entitled to the benefit of doubt.
As a result, the Court acquitted him of all charges in the murder case.
Senior Advocate R Basant, along with Advocates Aman Jha, Amar D Kamra, Akshay Sahay and Jitendra Khurana, appeared for Ram Rahim. The CBI was represented by Special Public Prosecutors Ravi Kamal Gupta and Akashdeep Singh, while Senior Advocate RS Cheema, assisted by Advocates Sarabjot Singh Cheema, Anmoldeep Singh and Inderpal Singh, represented the complainant.
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Republic TV Journalists
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
