Listen To This Post

Chandigarh:Casting serious doubt on the credibility of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe in the Ram Chander Chhatrapati murder case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the prosecution’s case against Dera Sacha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh rested largely on the inconsistent testimony of a key witness who “kept on tossing from one side to the other like a ping pong ball”.

In a 111-page judgment, a Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Vikram Aggarwal concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish Ram Rahim’s role in the alleged conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt, even as it upheld the conviction of the three co-accused in the case.

“In the considered opinion of this Court, the prosecution was not able to prove its case against Ram Rahim beyond a reasonable doubt, whereas it was able to do so in the case of other accused,” the Bench observed.

The court reiterated the fundamental principle of criminal law that if two plausible views emerge from the evidence—one pointing to guilt and the other to innocence—the benefit of doubt must go to the accused.

CBI Investigation Under Severe Scrutiny

The High Court expressed grave concern over the manner in which the CBI conducted the investigation, particularly regarding the handling of the testimony of Khatta Singh, projected by the prosecution as Ram Rahim’s driver and its key witness.

The Bench noted that the witness had repeatedly changed his version over the years, raising serious questions about the reliability of his testimony.

“Absolutely no reliance can be placed on a witness like Khatta Singh,” the court observed, adding that he had remained silent for years and later kept shifting his stand “like a ping pong ball”.

The court also remarked that the witness had alleged in several applications that he was pressured by the investigating agency to make certain statements, suggesting that the agency was under pressure to conclude the probe.

“It is a matter of grave concern that a premier investigating agency adopted this kind of methodology with a view to succeeding in the matter. The endeavour should have been to go to the bottom of the matter and bring out the truth,” the Bench said.

Delay and Contradictions in Key Testimony

According to the court, when Khatta Singh first gave statements during the investigation in December 2006, he did not implicate Ram Rahim in the murder of journalist Ram Chander Chhatrapati.

Significantly, the Bench pointed out that none of the co-accused had named Ram Rahim in their disclosure statements, and even after the CBI took over the investigation, his name did not figure initially.

The court further noted that when the witness’s statement was recorded in connection with another murder case—that of Ranjit Singh—he again did not link Ram Rahim to the Chhatrapati killing.

It was only in June 2007, nearly five years after the incident, that Khatta Singh first alleged that Ram Rahim had directed the killing, a delay the court considered significant.

Possibility of Co-Accused Acting Independently

While analysing the evidence, the High Court also examined Ram Rahim’s position as a public figure and religious leader with a large following.

“We are conscious of the fact that Ram Rahim is a public figure. Such public figures are known to have admirers and enemies alike,” the court noted.

Referring to the complex role of religion and sectarian loyalty in India, the Bench observed that extreme devotion among followers can sometimes lead to independent actions taken in the name of faith or loyalty.

After reviewing the evidence, the court concluded that the possibility of the three co-accused acting on their own could not be ruled out, stating that “there is a greater possibility of three accused having acted on their own accord.”

Media Narratives Must Not Sway Courts

The Bench also cautioned against the influence of media coverage and public opinion on judicial decisions.

“It is often said that courts and judges should not be swayed by media reports and the public attention that a matter receives. Matters are required to be decided strictly as per law,” the judgment said.

Reiterating established principles of criminal jurisprudence, the court emphasised that guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and any reasonable doubt must favour the accused.

Missing Evidence Raises Serious Questions

The High Court also highlighted serious gaps in the prosecution’s case, including the failure to examine a crucial police officer, Sub-Inspector Ram Chander, who had reportedly recorded the injured journalist’s statement at PGI Rohtak on October 26, 2002.

The Bench said it was “extremely strange” that the prosecution dropped such an important witness as “unnecessary”.

“In the considered opinion of this Court, he was the most important witness,” the judgment stated, adding that the omission created serious doubt in the prosecution’s case.

No Attempt to Record Journalist’s Statement

The court also questioned why the investigating agency failed to record a formal statement from Ram Chander Chhatrapati despite medical records showing that his condition remained stable for several days after the shooting.

Treatment records indicated that the journalist’s condition was “fair and stable” from October 26 to at least November 1, 2002. Yet, no attempt was made to seek a medical opinion on whether he was fit to give a statement.

“Strangely, no application was moved… to seek an opinion of the treating doctor as to whether Ram Chander Chhatrapati was fit to give a statement or not,” the court observed, adding that this lapse worked against the prosecution rather than the accused.

How the Attack Had Happened

The court also recounted the circumstances of the attack on the journalist. On the night of October 24, 2002, Ram Chander Chhatrapati was at home in Sirsa with his family—his sons Anshul Chhatrapati and Aridaman, and his daughter—when he was called outside around 8 pm.

As he stepped out of his house, he was shot at by assailants, sustaining critical injuries. He later succumbed to his injuries after undergoing treatment. The case had drawn nationwide attention due to its alleged links to the powerful Dera Sacha Sauda sect and the journalist’s reports exposing allegations against its leadership.

However, after examining the evidence in detail, the High Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish Ram Rahim’s direct involvement in the conspiracy, thereby entitling him to the benefit of doubt under established criminal law principles.