Weak Conspiracy Evidence, Coerced Witness: Why Punjab & Haryana High Court Acquitted Gurmeet Ram Rahim In Journalist Murder Case
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has acquitted Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh in the murder case of journalist Ram Chander Chhatrapati, holding that the the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) coerced a witness into giving a statement implicating Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh.
The Court upheld the conviction and life sentence of the other three accused — Kuldeep, Nirmal, and Krishan Lal. The Central Bureau of Investigation court had earlier convicted all of them and sentenced them to life imprisonment in this case.
A Division Bench of Justice Vikram Aggarwal and Chief Justice Sheel Nagu highlighted that the circumstances suggested that the sole witness, Khatta Singh, had been pressured by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into making a statement implicating Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh.
"it appears that he (Khatta Singh, the only witness of the conspiracy) 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 Court set aside the conviction and life sentence imposed by the Special CBI Court in Panchkula, which had earlier held Ram Rahim guilty of criminal conspiracy in the killing of the Sirsa-based journalist.
Background
Chhatrapati, editor of the evening daily Pura Sach, was shot outside his residence in Sirsa on October 24, 2002. He later succumbed to gunshot injuries on November 21, 2002 at Apollo Hospital in Delhi. The attack was allegedly carried out after he published reports accusing Ram Rahim of sexual exploitation of women followers at the Dera.
An FIR was registered under Sections 307 and 34 of the IPC and provisions of the Arms Act at Police Station City, Sirsa. After Chhatrapati's death, the offence was converted to murder under Section 302 IPC and conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC.
Following petitions before the High Court alleging a flawed investigation by the Haryana Police, the probe was transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation in 2003.
In 2019, a Special CBI Court convicted Ram Rahim along with Kuldeep Singh, Nirmal Singh and Krishan Lal (Dera manager) for conspiracy and murder, sentencing them to life imprisonment.
High Court Upholds Homicide But Re-examines Conspiracy
While deciding the appeals, the High Court first confirmed that Chhatrapati's death was homicidal. The Court relied on medical evidence including the testimony of doctors who examined the journalist and conducted the post-mortem, which established that he died due to complications arising from gunshot injuries.
However, the Court noted that Ram Rahim's alleged involvement was limited to the charge of criminal conspiracy and therefore required clear proof of a “meeting of minds” to eliminate the journalist.
Referring to Supreme Court jurisprudence on criminal conspiracy, including principles laid down in cases such as Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) and Yogesh v. State of Maharashtra, the High Court reiterated that conspiracy may be proved through circumstantial evidence but the chain of circumstances must be complete and must point only to the guilt of the accused.
Role Of Dera Followers
The Court pointed that "Such (Ram Rahim) 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'."
Conviction Based Solely On Unreliable Witness
The Court found that the trial court's conviction of Ram Rahim rested almost entirely on the testimony of a single witness—Khatta Singh, who had earlier served as the Dera chief's driver.
According to the High Court, the witness changed his version multiple times during the course of investigation and trial. Initially, he did not name Ram Rahim in connection with the Chhatrapati murder. Several years later, he alleged that Ram Rahim had ordered the killing after being angered by an article published in Pura Sach.
The Bench noted that the witness remained silent for several years after the incident, earlier claimed he was being pressured by the CBI to implicate Ram Rahim, later turned hostile during trial and subsequently altered his version again after being recalled.
Given these contradictions, the Court held that the testimony of such a witness could not be relied upon without strong corroboration.
Citing principles laid down in Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras, the Court observed that a witness whose testimony is neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable requires corroboration in material particulars. In the present case, the Court found no such corroboration.
Delay In Naming Ram Rahim
The High Court also noted that neither the FIR nor the disclosure statements of the arrested assailants initially named Ram Rahim. His name surfaced only nearly five years after the incident when Khatta Singh made his statement. This significant delay further weakened the prosecution's case regarding conspiracy, the Court held.
Non-Examination of Key Witness
Another crucial factor was the prosecution's decision not to examine a police officer who had allegedly recorded Chhatrapati's statement while he was hospitalized. The Court described this witness as extremely important, particularly because the prosecution case rested on proving conspiracy by Ram Rahim. The failure to examine the officer raised serious doubts about the prosecution's version.
Benefit of Doubt
Emphasising the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence, the Court held that the prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Relying on the principles governing circumstantial evidence laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, the Court observed that when two possible interpretations of evidence exist—one pointing to guilt and the other to innocence—the accused must receive the benefit of doubt.
The Bench concluded that the evidence on record did not establish Ram Rahim's involvement in the conspiracy with the required degree of certainty.
Possibility Of Independent Action By Co-Accused
The Court also observed that it was possible that the actual shooters and other accused could have acted on their own initiative. Given Ram Rahim's large following, the Court said the possibility that some followers might have acted independently could not be ruled out.
The Court also remarked on Media coverage, "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."
Consequently, the Court acquitted Ram Rahim of the charge of criminal conspiracy in the Chhatrapati murder case, setting aside his conviction and life sentence. However, the bench upped conviction of other accused.
Mr. R. Basant, Senior Advocate (Arguing counsel) with Mr. Aman Jha, Advocate, Mr. Amar D. Kamra, Advocate, Mr. Akshay Sahay, Advocate, and Mr. Jitender Khurana, Advocate, for appellant(s) in CRA-D-240-2019.
Mr. R.S. Rai, Senior Advocate (Arguing counsel) with Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate, Mr. Anurag Arora, Advocate, Ms. Rubina Vermani, Advocate, Mr. Arjun S. Rai, Advocate, Ms. Radhika Mehta, Advocate, and Mr. Farhad Kohli, Advocate, for the appellant in CRA-D-270-2019.
Mr. Ashwani Kumar Singh, Senior Advocate, (Arguing counsel) with Mr. Ashish Anshuman, Advocate, Mr. Rishi Titu, Advocate and Mr. Chandan Malav, Advocate, for the appellant in CRA-D-258-2019.
Mr. Amit Jhanji, Senior Advocate (Arguing counsel) with Mr. Harish Chhabra, Advocate,
Mr. Mayank Aggarwal, Advocate, and Mr. Abhishek Sanghi, Advocate, for the appellant in CRA-D-254-2019.
Mr. R.S. Bains, Senior Advocate (Arguing Counsel) with Mr. Sarabjot Singh Cheema, Advocate,
Mr. Anmoldeep Singh, Advocate, Mr. Inderpal Singh Deol, Advocate, for the complainant.
Mr. Ravi Kamal Gupta, Special Public Prosecutor, and Mr. Akashdeep Singh, Special Public Prosecutor, for the respondent – CBI in all cases.
Title: Baba Gurmeet Singh @ Maharaj Gurmeet Singh @ Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh v. Central Bureau of Investigation