Casting severe doubt on the credibility of the CBI probe into the Ram Chander Chhatrapati homicide case, the Punjab and Haryana Excessive Court docket has discovered that the prosecution’s case towards Dera Sacha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim rested totally on the shifting testimony of a witness who “saved on tossing from one aspect to the opposite like a ping pong ball”.
In its detailed judgment launched right this moment, the excessive courtroom noticed that the prosecution did not show Ram Rahim’s involvement within the alleged conspiracy past cheap doubt, whereas holding that the proof towards the three co-accused remained intact.
“It’s a settled precept of regulation that the place two prospects, one among fee of the crime and the opposite of innocence, are fairly doable, the accused is entitled to the good thing about doubt,” it mentioned.
In its 111-page judgment, the Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Vikram Aggarwal expressed grave concern over the style during which the CBI dealt with the testimony of the prosecution’s key witness, Khatta Singh, projected as Ram Rahim’s driver.
The Bench mentioned it could not hesitate to carry that the witness appeared to have been coerced by the CBI into making a press release, because the company was below strain to conclude the investigation, one thing he had recommended in “many” of his functions.
“It’s a matter of grave concern {that a} premier investigating company adopted this type of methodology with a view to reach the matter. The endeavour ought to have been to go to the underside of the matter and convey out the reality,” the Bench famous.
The courtroom mentioned the whole case towards Ram Rahim rested considerably on the testimony of Khatta Singh, whose statements have been inconsistent. “Completely no reliance might be positioned on a witness like Khatta Singh. He selected to stay silent for plenty of years after which saved on tossing from one aspect to the opposite like a ping pong ball.”
Even when he first made statements in the course of the investigation in December 2006, the witness didn’t implicate Ram Rahim within the Chhatrapati case. “Ram Rahim was not named at this stage. Not solely this, he was not named by any of the co-accused of their disclosure statements as properly.”
The courtroom additional acknowledged: “Even after the CBI had taken over the investigation, Ram Rahim had by no means been named.” He once more didn’t hyperlink Ram Rahim with the Chhatrapati killing when his assertion was recorded in one other homicide case. “His assertion was recorded in Ranjit Singh’s homicide case… Notably, even at this stage, he didn’t degree any allegations towards Ram Rahim relating to his involvement within the current case.”
It was solely in June 2007 — nearly 5 years after the incident — that he first alleged that Ram Rahim had ordered the killing.
The courtroom additionally thought-about Ram Rahim’s standing as a spiritual chief with a big following. “We’re acutely aware of the truth that Ram Rahim is a public determine. Such public figures are recognized to have admirers and enemies alike.” The courtroom acknowledged the affect of spiritual allegiance in India. “It’s well-known that Ram Rahim has an enormous following. In our nation, faith, caste, sects play an especially necessary function. Lives are given and brought of their title.”
Referring to excessive devotion amongst followers, the courtroom noticed: “Many followers… might be termed ‘fanatics’. A fanatic, as per the Oxford Dictionary, is an individual crammed with extreme and single-minded zeal, particularly for an excessive non secular or political trigger.”
After analysing the proof, the courtroom mentioned the potential of the co-accused performing independently couldn’t be dominated out. “There’s a larger risk of the three accused having acted on their very own,” it mentioned.
The Bench emphasised that courts should resolve legal circumstances strictly on proof reasonably than media narratives. “Courts and Judges shouldn’t be swayed by media reviews and the general public consideration which a matter receives. Issues are required to be determined strictly as per regulation.”
Reiterating the ideas of legal jurisprudence, the courtroom added: “The second a doubt arises, its profit has to go to the accused.”
The courtroom pointed to severe gaps within the prosecution’s case, together with the failure to look at an important police officer who recorded the injured journalist’s assertion. “One side that wants point out is that SI Ram Chander had recorded the assertion of Ram Chander Chhatrapati in PGI, Rohtak, on October 26, 2002. Nevertheless, this assertion has not been introduced on report.”
Calling the omission inexplicable, the courtroom mentioned: “This can be very unusual that this crucial witness was given up as ‘being pointless’… Within the thought-about opinion of this courtroom, he was crucial witness.” This created a severe doubt within the prosecution’s case, the courtroom added.
The courtroom additionally discovered it shocking that the investigating company didn’t try to report the journalist’s assertion regardless of medical data displaying he remained steady for a number of days after the capturing. “His remedy report reveals that his common situation was honest and steady from October 26, 2002, to not less than November 1, 2002.”
But no effort was made to acquire a proper assertion. “Unusually, no software was moved to hunt an opinion from the treating physician on whether or not Chhatrapati was match to offer a press release. This goes towards the investigating company.”
The courtroom recounted the circumstances of the assault: “The incident occurred at 8 pm on October 24, 2002. Ram Chander Chhatrapati, alongside along with his two sons Anshul Chhatrapati and Aridaman, and his daughter, was at residence and about to have their meals when he was known as out and shot.”
