Casting serious doubts on the credibility of the CBI investigation in the Ram Chander Chhatrapati murder case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that the prosecution’s case against Dera Sacha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim largely relied on the shifting testimony of a key witness who “kept on tossing from one side to the other like a ping pong ball”.
In its detailed 111 page judgment, the Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Vikram Aggarwal held that the prosecution failed to establish Ram Rahim’s involvement in the alleged conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt. The court, however, maintained that the evidence against the three co accused remained intact.
The Bench reiterated the settled principle of criminal law that when two possibilities emerge from the evidence one indicating guilt and the other innocence the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
Expressing concern over the manner in which the CBI handled the testimony of the prosecution’s key witness Khatta Singh, who was projected as Ram Rahim’s driver, the court said the witness appeared to have been pressured by the investigating agency to give a statement.
“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 observed.
The court said the entire case against Ram Rahim rested substantially on the testimony of Khatta Singh, whose statements were inconsistent over time. “Absolutely no reliance can be placed on a witness like Khatta Singh. He chose to remain silent for a number of years and then kept on tossing from one side to the other like a ping pong ball,” the judgment noted.
The court pointed out that when the witness first made statements during the investigation in December 2006 he did not implicate Ram Rahim in the Chhatrapati murder case. The dera chief was also not named by any of the co accused in their disclosure statements.
Even after the CBI took over the investigation, Ram Rahim was not named initially. The witness again failed to link him with the murder when his statement was recorded in connection with another case relating to the killing of Ranjit Singh.
It was only in June 2007, nearly five years after the incident, that the witness first alleged that Ram Rahim had ordered the killing.
The High Court also took note of Ram Rahim’s status as a religious leader with a large following and observed that public figures often have both supporters and adversaries. It remarked that in India religion, caste and sects play a significant role and people sometimes go to extreme lengths in their name.
Referring to extreme devotion among followers, the court noted that some supporters could be termed fanatics driven by intense and single minded zeal for a religious or political cause.
After examining the evidence, the Bench said the possibility that the three co accused may have acted on their own could not be ruled out.
The court emphasised that criminal cases must be decided strictly on the basis of evidence and not influenced by media coverage or public attention. “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,” the Bench observed.
Reiterating the basic principles of criminal jurisprudence, the court added that once a doubt arises the benefit must go to the accused.
The judgment also pointed to serious gaps in the prosecution’s case, including the failure to examine a crucial police officer who had recorded the statement of the injured journalist.
According to the court, Sub Inspector Ram Chander had recorded Ram Chander Chhatrapati’s statement at PGI Rohtak on October 26, 2002, but the statement was not brought on record during the trial.
Calling the omission surprising, the Bench said the officer was one of the most important witnesses but was inexplicably given up as unnecessary by the prosecution, which created serious doubt in the case.
The court also questioned why investigators did not attempt to record the journalist’s statement despite medical records indicating that he remained stable for several days after the shooting. His treatment record showed that his condition was stable from October 26 to at least November 1, 2002.
However, no application was moved to seek the doctor’s opinion on whether Chhatrapati was fit to give a formal statement, a lapse the court said went against the investigating agency.
The Bench also recounted the circumstances of the attack. The incident took place around 8 pm on October 24, 2002, when journalist Ram Chander Chhatrapati was at home with his family and about to have dinner. He was called outside his residence and shot by assailants.