Unreliable witness, gaps in CBI probe: Why the Punjab and Haryana High Court acquitted Ram Rahim

The editor of the evening newspaper, Pura Sach, Ram Chander Chhatrapati, was shot outside his home in Sirsa on October 24, 2002, while having dinner with his family. He died of his injuries on November 21, 2002, at Apollo Hospital in Delhi.

Chhatrapati had published articles alleging sexual exploitation of women followers by the Dera chief, and had also carried other critical reports about the sect. His family had earlier reported receiving threats.

Eyewitnesses, including his 13-year-old son Aridaman, identified the attackers as Kuldeep Singh Kala and Nirmal Singh, who fired at him and fled on a scooter.

The police initially registered FIR No. 685 of 2002 under charges of attempted murder. After Chhatrapati’s death, the case was converted to murder and criminal conspiracy.

While acquitting Ram Rahim, the High Court dismissed the appeals of shooter Kuldeep Singh Kala and his accomplice Nirmal Singh and Dera functionary Krishan Lal, upholding their life sentences. The court said there was strong evidence against them.

What are the key reasons cited by the High Court

• Unreliable key witness: The court found that the prosecution’s main witness, Khatta Singh, could not be relied upon. The judgment said that “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 court noted that he initially turned hostile and even alleged pressure by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) before later supporting the prosecution. “He was not a reliable witness, nor was there sufficient corroboration of his statement.”

• No corroboration for conspiracy claim: Khatta Singh had alleged that he travelled with Ram Rahim to Jalandhar on October 23, 2002, where the conspiracy to kill the journalist was discussed. However, the investigating officer admitted that Ram Rahim’s visit to Jalandhar and related claims were not verified by CBI.

• Non-examination of a crucial witness: The court said the prosecution failed to examine Sub-Inspector Ram Chander, who had recorded the statement of the injured journalist soon after the shooting. The judgment said, “This very important witness was given up by the prosecution as being unnecessary… a doubt is created… The benefit of the doubt necessarily has to go to the accused.”

• Failure to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt: The court held that the prosecution could not establish Ram Rahim’s role in the conspiracy. “The prosecution was not able to prove its case against A1 beyond a reasonable doubt… where two possibilities are reasonably possible, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.”

• Gaps in the CBI investigation: The court noted that investigators made no effort to record the journalist’s statement again, even though hospital records showed that he remained “fair and stable” for several days after the attack. Referring to the conduct of the key witness, the court observed, “It appears that he was coerced by CBI… under pressure to conclude the investigation.”

What the High Court said about the shooter and his accomplice

The court held that the prosecution had proved the guilt of Kuldeep Singh Kala, Nirmal Singh, and Krishan Lal through eyewitness accounts, recovery of the weapon and other supporting evidence, and dismissed their appeals as “devoid of merit.”

• Reliable eyewitness accounts: The court found the statements of eyewitnesses Anshul and Aridaman trustworthy. They named Kuldeep Singh Kala as the person who fired at the journalist and Nirmal Singh as the accomplice who fled from the spot. Kala was caught at the scene by patrolling police officers Amarpal and Dharam Chand.

• Quick arrest and sequence of events: The court noted that Kala was caught within minutes of the firing. According to the prosecution, he handed over the revolver to Nirmal Singh while trying to escape. The court said the absence of an entry at the police post did not weaken the case, given the chaotic, tense situation at the hospital.

• Identification of the accused: The court rejected the argument that a formal identification parade was necessary. It said the accused’s names were revealed immediately after the incident, and that the attackers were seen by the witnesses. Their identification in court was therefore accepted.

• Weapon and forensic support: The .32 revolver used in the attack, and the bullets recovered from the scene, supported the prosecution’s case. The court said the forensic reports were reliable and that minor differences in medical details could be explained by the victim’s movements during the attack.

• Rejection of claims of false implication: The court rejected the defence claim that evidence had been fabricated. It said there was no indication that the evidence sent from the mortuary and the forensic laboratory had been tampered with. It also held that a newspaper report cited by the defence could not be relied upon.

What the High Court said about Dera Sacha Sauda functionary Krishan Lal

• Licensed weapon used in the crime: The court noted that the .32 revolver used in the attack was licensed in the name of Krishan Lal. The weapon was recovered from Nirmal Singh after the crime. Krishan Lal did not explain how his licensed weapon came into the possession of the attackers.

• Link with the Dera and motive: The address on the weapon licence mentioned Dera Sacha Sauda. The court also referred to earlier complaints against the journalist and statements indicating that the weapon had been supplied by a Dera follower. It concluded that Krishan Lal was part of the conspiracy.

• Defence witness rejected: The court did not accept the testimony of defence witness Nachhattar Pal, who claimed that the police had taken the weapon months earlier. It said the claim was an afterthought and was contradicted by Krishan Lal’s own statement.

• Witnesses turning hostile: The court noted that two witnesses linked to Krishan Lal and the Dera had been given up during the trial after they were suspected of being influenced. The court drew an adverse inference against Krishan Lal.