The Punjab and Haryana High Court has said that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had coerced a witness to implicate Dera Sacha Sauda Chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh in the murder case of journalist Ram Chander Chhatrapati in 2002.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Vikram Aggarwal made the observation in its recent judgment acquitting the godman, who had earlier been found guilty of conspiracy by a trial court in the murder case.
The High Court judgment clearing Ram Rahim was made public today.
The Court observed that Khatta Singh, the solitary witness of the alleged conspiracy, 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." It rejected the claim that a threat from Dera prevented the witness from deposing earlier.
“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,” the Bench added.
Commenting on the role played by Dera followers in the case, the Court noted that Ram Rahim is a public figure and people like him have admirers and enemies. It added that followers of a faith many times cross limits and break laws.
“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 added that the trial court, which convicted and sentenced Ram Rahim to life imprisonment in 2018, was required to examine whether there was overwhelming evidence against him or whether the murder could have been a step independently taken by his staunch followers.
”Notably, there was no discussion on this aspect,” the Bench said.
Following an examination of the evidence, the High Court concluded that three other convicts, whose appeals were dismissed last week, acted on their own accord in committing the murder.
The Court also commented on the media coverage of the case.
"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.
Going into the background of the case, the Bench noted that the High Court in 2002 had taken a suo motu cognizance of an anonymous letter making allegations that the Dera Chief was involved in the sexual abuse of sadhvis.
It recorded that during the pendency of the suo motu case, the son of journalist Ram Chander Chhatrapati filed a petition seeking a proper investigation into his father’s murder. The son claimed that his father was shot dead because he had been publishing news relating to the Dera Sacha Sauda.
The Court further noted that the probe into the murder case was then transferred to the CBI.
It added that the Court in April 2007 reprimanded the CBI for a slow investigation, upon which the agency assured that the probe would be completed in a timely manner. The said undertaking was recorded as well by the Court.
"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," the Bench noted.
Just weeks after that, the Court noted that Khatta Singh's statement was recorded by the CBI, leading to the naming of Ram Rahim as accused number one
“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.
However, Khatta Singh turned hostile during the trial and accused CBI of coercing him. Later, in 2017, following Ram Rahim’s conviction in rape cases, Khatta Singh filed an application to again support the prosecution case. The High Court opined that the trial court did not examine whether the witness was reliable.
The Court also noted the police officer, who had recorded the murder victim’s statement at PGI Rohtak, was not examined during the trial. His evidence would have been of extreme importance, the Bench said. It noted that even that statement was not brought on record.
The Court said it would be a pure conjecture to conclude that this was done to shield Ram Rahim. It, thus, said the benefit of the doubt necessarily has to go to the accused.
“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 been `won over’. In the considered opinion of this Court, he was the most important witness,” it added.
The Bench also found it strange that no application was moved to seek an opinion of the treating doctor as to whether the murder victim was fit to give a statement or not when he was reported to be stable in the hospital, a few days before his death.
The Court, ultimately, concluded that Ram Rahim’s guilt was not proved and acquitted him.
Senior Advocate R Basant with Advocates Aman Jha, Amar D Kamra, Akshay Sahay and Jitendra Khurana represented Ram Rahim.
Special Public Prosecutors Ravi Kamal Gupta and Akashdeep Singh represented the CBI.
Senior Advocate RS Cheema, with Advocates Sarabjot Singh Cheema, Anmoldeep Singh and Inderpal Singh represented the complainant.
[Read Judgment]