P&H High Court Acquits Gurmeet Ram Rahim, Says CBI May Have Coerced Witness in Journalist Murder Case

The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in its judgement clearing Dera Sacha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh in the 2002 murder case of journalist Ram Chander Chhatrapati, observed that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) may have coerced a witness to implicate him while facing pressure to complete the probe.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Vikram Aggarwal made these observations while acquitting Ram Rahim of charges of criminal conspiracy in the murder case. The trial court had earlier convicted him in 2018 and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

The High Court noted serious concerns regarding the testimony of Khatta Singh, who was the only witness linking Ram Rahim to the alleged conspiracy. The Court observed that the witness remained silent for several years and frequently changed his position during the proceedings.

The Bench remarked that the witness appeared to have been influenced by investigative pressure rather than acting independently. Referring to his statements and applications on record, the Court said it appeared that the witness was compelled by the CBI to give a statement implicating Ram Rahim.

“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],” the Bench observed, adding that such investigative methods were a matter of grave concern.

The Court noted that the High Court had earlier reprimanded the CBI in April 2007 for delays in the investigation. The agency had then assured the Court that the probe would be completed promptly.

According to the judgement, Ram Rahim’s name did not appear during the investigation until June 2007, when Khatta Singh’s statement was recorded nearly five years after the murder. In that statement, he alleged that Ram Rahim had ordered the killing after seeing a publication critical of the Dera.

However, the witness later turned hostile during the trial and accused the CBI of coercion. Years later, he again attempted to support the prosecution after Ram Rahim was convicted in a separate rape case in 2017.

The High Court held that the trial court failed to properly evaluate whether the witness was reliable or whether the murder could have been independently committed by Ram Rahim’s followers without his involvement.

The Bench also highlighted several gaps in the prosecution case. It pointed out that a crucial police officer who recorded the dying declaration of the victim at PGI Rohtak was never examined during trial.

According to the Court, the absence of this witness significantly weakened the prosecution case because his testimony could have provided important clarity about the circumstances of the victim’s statement.

The Court further noted that no medical opinion was sought to confirm whether the victim was fit to give a statement while he was hospitalised before his death.

The Bench emphasised that criminal law requires proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Once reasonable doubt arises, the benefit must go to the accused.

“It is often said that Courts and Judges should not be swayed by media reports and the public attention which a matter receives… It has to be borne in mind that the principles of criminal jurisprudence require proving the guilt of an accused beyond reasonable doubt,” the Court stated.

After analysing the evidence, the High Court concluded that Ram Rahim’s role in the conspiracy was not proved and granted him the benefit of doubt.