CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 1
IN THE COURT OF JAGDEEP SINGH, SPECIAL JUDGE, CBI, (HARYANA) AT PANCHKULA.
UID NO. : HR0125
Case Type Chi
Filing No. 3177/2013 Filing Date: 27.10.2007
Registration No. 1852/2013 Registration Date: 27.10.2007
CNR No. HRPK01-000048-2007
Date of Decision 11.01.2019/17.01.2019
CBI VERSUS 1. Baba Gurmeet Singh @ Maharaj Gurmeet Singh @ Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh, Aged 51 years, son of late Maghar Singh, resident of DeraSacha Sauda, Sirsa (Haryana).
2. Kuldeep Singh @ Kala, Aged 47 years, son of Darshan Singh, resident of Green Colony, College Road, Faridkot (Punjab).
3. Nirmal Singh, Aged 47 years son of Gurdev Singh, resident of Green Colony, College Road, Faridkot (Punjab).
4. Krishan Lal @ Kishan Lal, Aged 69 years, son of Bhagwan Dass Arora, resident of H.NO. 40, Shah Satnam Ji Nagar, opposite Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa (Haryana).
… Accused.
RC No. 10(S) 2003/SCB/CHG dated 09.12.2003.Under Sections: 302, 307, 34, 120-B IPC and under Section 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959.P.S. SCB, CBI, Chandigarh.
Argued by: Shri H.P.S. Verma, Special PP and Sh. S.S. Yadav, DLA-cum-Special PP for the CBI along with Sh. Satish Dagar, Investigating Officer/SP, AC-III/New Delhi. Shri P.K. Sandhir, Advocate, Shri Gurdas Singh, Advocate and Shri Harish Chhabra, Advocate for accused Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh.Shri N.P.S. Waraich, Advocate and Shri Sarabjit Singh
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 2
Waraich, Advocate for accused Nirmal Singh and Kuldeep Singh.Shri Anil Kaushik, Advocate for accused Krishan Lal.
JUDGMENT
1. The above-named four accused have been sent up to face trial
for the commission of offences under sections 120-B, 302, 307, 34 IPC
and under Section 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959 in RC No. 10(S)
2003/SCB/CHG dated 09.12.2003 registered at P.S. SCB, CBI,
Chandigarh.
2. In this case, machinery of law was set into motion by
complainant Aridaman vide complaint dated 24.10.2002 (Ex.PW5/A).
One Ram Chander Chhattarpati, who was a journalist and was running
evening newspaper “Poora Sach” from Sirsa, was shot at on 24.10.2002
by assailants outside his residence at Sirsa in the evening hours. Injured
Ram Chander Chhattarpati was taken to General Hospital, Sirsa and
thereafter to PGI, Rohtak and thereafter, he was shifted to Apollo
Hospital, Delhi where he unfortunately expired on 21.11.2002 on account
of gun-shot injuries. On the complaint of Aridaman, son of Ram Chander
Chhattarpati, initially FIR No.685 of 2002 was registered at P.S. City,
Sirsa on 24.10.2002 under sections 307, 34 IPC and under Section 25/27
of the Arms Act. As per complainant Aridaman, on 24.10.2002 at about
8.00/07.45 p.m., his father, his elder brother, namely, Anshul and his
sister, namely, Shreysi were sitting in their house for taking meals and at
that time they heard noise of someone calling his father by his name from
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 3
the backside lane of the house at which place the compound wall was
broken and on hearing the calling, his father came outside in the street and
his elder brother, namely, Anshul switched on the ligh of backside of the
house and he (complainant) and his sister followed their father.
Complainant has further stated that when they came outside, they saw two
youths holding pistols and one of them asked other by saying “Kuldeep
Maar Goli” and the other one fired at his father and his father fell down.
Further stated that when they shouted “Bachao Bachao”, then Kuldeep
stated to the other “Nirmal Bhag Le, Kaam Ho Gaya Hai”. Further stated
that when both the assailants tried to escape on a nearby parked scooter,
then on hearing cries/shouting, 2-3 police personnel, who were patrolling
there, came running to that place and apprehended one of the assailants
and other assailant managed to escape on scooter. Complainant has further
stated that cause of ill-will was that his father, who was a journalist, used
to publish news reports relating to Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa and on
account of the same, he had been receiving continuous threats to his life
from the side of Dera and that he suspects that Dera people had got
carried out the murderous attack. That his father was taken to the hospital
in Sirsa in a car of the neighbourer.
3. After recording the statement of the complainant Aridaman,
initially FIR was registered under Sections 307, 34 IPC and under section
25/27 of the Arms Act at P.S. City, Sirsa and investigation by the local
police commenced. As per the prosecution case, one of the assailant
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 4
Kuldeep Singh was apprehended at the spot and other assailant Nirmal
Singh was arrested on 26.10.2002 and at the time of apprehending of said
Nirmal Singh, police recovered .32 bore revolver bearing No. FG-
13571RM, which was found to be licensed revolver of Krishan Lal,
Prabandhak of Dera Sacha Sauda and also got recovered walkie-talkie,
stated to be belonging to Dera Sacha Sauda, apart from some other
recovered articles. As per investigation by the local police, SI Vijay Singh
started investigation and received rukka from General Hospital, Sirsa and
moved application to get opinion of the concerned doctor, upon which he
was informed that injured Ram Chander Chhattarpati has been referred to
PGI, Rohtak and SI Vijay Singh obtained MLR of the injured, whereby 4
fire arm injuries were opined and the doctor also handed over parcel
containing bullet and another parcel containing blood stained clothes of
the injured and police took the same into possession. The Investigating
Officer also inspected the place of occurrence and took into possession
blood stained earth. On 25.10.2002, offence under section 120-B IPC was
inserted in the FIR. Thereafter, on 26.10.2002, another accused Nirmal
Singh was arrested while travelling in Car No. DL4CC-1053 and one
revolver of .32 bore along with 5 empty cartridges and 7 live cartridges,
one walkie-talkie set, sword, Kapa, knife etc. were also recovered from
the possession of accused Nirmal Singh at the time of apprehending him.
Thereafter, on 26.10.2002, SI Ram Chander went to PGI, Rohtak and got
recorded the statement of injured Ram Chander Chattarpati after
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 5
obtaining opinion of concerned doctor and also recored statement of
Anshul. On 30.10.2002, accused Krishan Lal was also arrested and during
police remand, said accused suffered disclosure statement and got
recovered licence of .32 bore revolver, one scooter and registration
certificate (RC) in pursuance to his disclosure statement. On 08.11.2002,
investigation of the case was handed over to Inspector Jaipal of CIA staff
and Inspector Jaipal visited Apollo Hospital, Delhi for recording the
statement of injured Ram Chander Chhattarpati, but the doctor opined that
injured was not fit to make statement and when Inspector Jaipal again
visited Apollo Hospital, Delhi on 22.11.2002 for recording the statement
of Ram Chander Chhattarpati, he came to know that Ram Chander
Chhattarpati had expired on 21.11.2002 on account of fire arm injuries
and he collected sealed parcel containing bullet recovered from the body
of Ram Chander Chhattarpati by doctors of AIIMS, Delhi during
postmortem and dead body of Ram Chander Chhattarpati from ASI
Devinder Singh of P.S. Sarita Vihra, New Delhi and accordingly,
Inspector CIA added section 302 IPC to the FIR and special report was
sent through Constable Satish Kumar. The police also took into
possession copies of newspaper cuttings of newspaper “Poora Sach” and
other documents including bed head ticket of PGI, Rothak , licence No.
P/4220/1-8 of walkie-talkie set etc. Scaled site plan was also prepared.
Sealed parcels containing bullet (s), revolver etc. were forwarded to FSL,
Madhuban for examination and opinion. On 05.12.2002, local police
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 6
prepared charge-sheet against accused Kuldeep Singh, Nirmal Singh and
Krishan Lal and the challan was filed in the court of competent
jurisdiction at Sirsa on 10.12.2002. Thereafter, case was committed to the
Court of learned Sessions Judge, Sirsa, vide order dated 13.01.2003
passed by the then learrned CJM, Sirsa.
4. Not satisfied with the investigation conducted by local police,
Anshul Chhattarpati, i.e. elder son of Ram Chander Chhattarpati, filed a
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 7931-M of 2002 before Hon’ble
High Court of Punjab & Haryana, thereby praying that investigation of
FIR No. 685 of 2002, under sections 302, 34 IPC read with section 25/27
of the Arms Act registered at P.S. City, Sirsa, be handed over to CBI or
any other independent agency for fair investigation as the investiagion
conducted by the Haryana Police was neither fair nor proper and it was
also stated that besides 3 accused challaned by the local police, some
other persons belonging to Dera Sacha Sauda including its chief Baba
Gurmeet Singh were also involved in the murder of his father and the
Hon’ble High Court, ivde its order dated 10.11.2003, transferred the
investigation of the case to CBI and accordingly, said FIR No. 685 dated
24.10.2002 was re-registered in CBI as case/FIR No. RC-
10(S)/2003/SCB/CHD on 09.12.2003 and accordingly, investigation by
the CBI was taken up.
5. As per investigation conducted by the CBI, Ram Chander
Chhattarpati, journalist of Sirsa, had been running a newspaper called
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 7
“Poora Sach” and as a journalist, he had been publishing news items
about the activities of Baba Gurmeet Singh, Chief of Dera Sacha Sauda,
Sirsa and the Dera. Further, as per the investigation conducted by the CBI,
it was revealed that in May 2002, deceased Ram Chander Chhattarpati
published news item about the anonymous complaint of a Sadhvi
regarding sexual exploitation of Sadhvis in Dera Sacha Sauda in the
newspaper and on this, he received threats from the Dera. Further
investigation revealed that son of deceased Ram Chander Chhattarpati
also disclosed that his father had sent a letter to S.P., Sirsa requesting for
security cover to him. It was also revealed that son of Ram Chander
Chhattarpati, namely, Aridaman made a complaint on 24.10.2002
regarding occurrence causing gun shot injuries to his father by two
assailants in their presence and the injured was taken to Civil Hospital,
Sirsa and after preliminary treatment, the doctors of the Civil Hospital
referred the injured to PGI, Rohtak. Further it was revealed that on
26.10.2002, SI Ram Chander came at PGI, Rohtak and recorded the
statement of Ram Chander Chhattarpati in the hospital in the presence of
Anshul Chhattarpati and that his father disclosed to SI Ram Chander that
Baba Gurmeet Singh and Krishan Lal, Prabandhak of the Dera had got
attacked him as he was writing against the Dera activities in his
newspaper and when he found that SI Ram Chander had not written the
name of Baba Gurmeet Singh in the statement, then he asked SI about the
same, then SI Ram Chander told him that he will write the name of Baba
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 8
Gurmeet Singh on reaching Sirsa. It was disclosed that before that also,
his father had informed him about the threat received by him on phone
from Baba Gurmeet Singh and Krishan Lal of the Dera. It was disclosed
during investigation by the CBI that on 08.11.20012, Sohana Ram
Sangha, father of injured Ram Chander Chhattarpati, gave a letter to D.C.,
Sirsa with a copy to S.P. Sirsa, requesting that statement of Ram Chander
Chhattarpati be got recorded before a Magistrate, but it was not got
recorded. It was revealed that one Krishan Lal also filed a false complaint
against Ram Chander Chhattarpati to the effect that his father (Ram
Chander Chhattarpati) abused the caste of one Krishan Lal, whereas he
did not know any such Krishan Lal and that an attempt was made to
involve Ram Chander Chattarpati in a false case to put pressure on him
and inspite of all that Ram Chander Chhattarpati continued writing about
the Dera activities. Further as per investigation, Anshul Chattarpati also
disclosed that 02.07.2002, Ram Chander Chhattarpati sent a letter to S.P.,
Sirsa with copies to the Chief Minister, Haryana; Chairman, Indian Press
Council, New Delhi; Chairman, Human Rights Commission etc.
mentioning that on 01.07.2002, he had received threat from some
unknown persons who demanded of him not to publish news regarding
Dera Sacha Sauda and to mend his ways otherwise they knew how to
bring him to the right path. It was revealed during investigation that Ram
Chander Chhattarpati started newspaper “Poora Sach” on 02.02.2000 and
was publishing news about the activities of Dera Sacha Sauda and he
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 9
published various news items in his newspaper about the Dera i.e. in the
Edition No. 146 dated 30.05.2002, article titled “Dharam ke naam per
kiye ja rahein hain sadhvion ke jeeven barbad” was published in his
newspaper, wherein he referred to anonymous complaint of a Sadhvi
regarding sexual exploitation of Sadhvis in the Dera by its Chief; in the
Edition No. 151 dated 04.06.2002 and in Edition No. 173 dated
28.06.2002 also, he published news regarding said anonymous complaint
of Sadhvis; in the Edition No. 154 dated 07.06.2002, the deceased got
published an article condemning the attack on “Lekha Jokha” newspaper
office in Fatehabad and assault on R.K. Sethi of said newspaper by Dera
people for publishing article regarding the anonymous complaint of a
Sadhvi about sexual exploitation in the Dera; he also condemned the
assault on other persons by Dera people holding them responsible for
distributing the said anonymous complaint; further he also published an
article regarding beating of journalists and members of Tarksheel society
by the Dera followers on account of said anonymous complaint in his
newspaper “Poora Sacha” in its Edition No. 189 dated 15.07.2002; in the
Edition No. 258 dated 25.09.2002, Ram Chander Chattarpati published a
news item titled “On the letter of Sadhvi, the High Court has given orders
of CBI investigation against Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa” and he gave
chronology of events since the circulation of the anonymous letter of the
Sadvhi; in the Edition No. 282 dated 23.10.2002, Ram Chander
Chhattarpati published another news items report that the petition filed by
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 10
some Sadhvis of Dera in the Hon’ble High Court for cancellation of the
order of the High Court transferring investigation of the case to the CBI,
has been dismissed. Further investigation revealed that R.K. Sethi,
correspondent of “Lekha Jokha”, Fatehabad has stated that he had written
an article on 06.06.2002 in the newspaper “Lekha Jokha” regarding the
sexual exploitation of Sadhvis by Baba Gurmeet Singh and on this, Dera
followers attacked his house and also abused Editor Madan Bansal and
also ransacked the office of “Lekha Jokha”. It was also revealed during
investigation that Dr. Jai Parkash Chaudhry and Dr. Dale Singh of
General Hospital, Sirsa have stated that they found a bullet entrapped in
the clothes of Ram Chander Chhattarpati, which was handed over to the
police in sealed condition and that they referred Ram Chander
Chhattarpati to PGI, Rohtak. Further it was also revealed that ASI
Devinder Singh of P.S. Sarita Vihar, New Delhi has stated that he had got
conducted postmortem examination on the body of deceased Ram
Chander Chhattarpati in AIIMS, New Delhi and handed over the bullet
recovered from the body of deceased Ram Chander Chhattarpati and the
dead body to Inspector Jai Pal Singh. Further it was revealed that Dr.
Chitranjan Behera of AIIMS, New Delhi, who had conducted the
postmortem examination on the body of Ram Chander Chhattarpati, had
opined that the cause of death of Ram Chander Chhattarpati was
septicemia consequent upon antemortem gun shot injuries which was
sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and that he had
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 11
recovered one bullet from the dead body, which was handed over by him
to the police. Further investigation revealed that Dera had two fixed
wireless stations and 6 hand-held sets and the six hand-held sets were
issued to Jagjit Singh, Ram Singh, Sukhdev Singh Tohana, Darshan
Tohana and Krishan Lal Pradhan as per directions of Inder Sain, Manager
of the Dera and all these hand sets were allotted a different number and
whenever there was need to talk to these persons holding the sets, a
particular number given to that set was dialled and no recording of the
communication on the wireless set was being maintained in the Dera. It
was revealed that on the day of murderous attack on Ram Chander
Chhattarpati on 24.10.2002, Gobi Ram was sitting on the wireless set
operation and out of 06 hand sets available with him, he had issued one
set to Krishan Lal, Prabandhak of the Dera, on the evening of that day and
the said set was not returned back to the Dera by Krishan LaL and the
Dera has a licence No. P-4220/1-8 for the wifeless sets issued to Dera
Sacha Sauda. Further investigation revealed that ex-driver of Baba
Gurmeet Singh disclosed that on 23.10.2002, at about 06.00 p.m., he
along with Baba Gurmeet Singh was present in the gufa of the new Dera
and Kuldeep Singh, Nirmal Singh and Krishan Lal, Prabandhak of the
Dera showed the newspaper “Poora Sach” dated 23.10.2002 in which
Ram Chander Chhattarpati had published an article and after reading the
article, Baba Gurmeet Singh got angry and told Krishan Lal, Kuldeep
Singh and Nirmal Singh to eliminate Ram Chander Chhattarpati by any
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 12
means so that he may not write against Dera Sacha Sauda in future and
on hearing this, Krishan Lal went out of the gufa of Baba Gurmeet Singh
and came back after some time with a walkie-talkie set of the Dera and he
gave the walkie-talkie set and his own revolver to Kuldeep Singh and
Nirmal Singh in the presence of Baba Gurmeet Singh in the gufa and told
that as ordered by Baba Gurmeet Singh, they should eliminate Ram
Chander Chhattarpati. Krishan Lal told them to keep him informed of the
developments over the walkie-talkie set. He also disclosed that Nimral
Sigh and Kuldeep Singh were carpenters of the Dera and were very close
to Baba Gurmeet Singh. It was further dislcosed that on 24.10.2002, he
went to Delhi and in the night, he came to know about the attack on Ram
Chander Chhattarpati and arrest of Kuldeep Singh by the police through a
telephonic call from his house. It was further disclosed by Khatta Singh
that he was disturbed and worried but could not do anything because Baba
Gurmeet Singh and his associates were very dangerous and powerful and
on account of which he could not muster courage to say anything against
big people and for this reason, he remained quiet and he was also worried
about the safety of his family. Khatta Singh made statement u/s 164
Cr.P.C. bvefore learned Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh on 22.06.2007 in
which he has corroborated his version recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Further
investigation revealed that SI-Ram Chander was subjected to polygraph
test at CFSL, New Delhi on 05.09.2005 and the test revealed deception
in his statement indicating that SI Ram Chander was telling a lie that Ram
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 13
Chander Chhattarpati did not mention the name of Baba Gurmeet Singh in
his statement recorded on 26.10.2002 and subsequently, SI Ram Chander
was again subjected to polygraph test on 16/17.05.2007 and deception
was again noticed in the test. In the light of investigation conducted by the
CBI, it was concluded by investigating agency that Baba Gurmeet Singh,
Chief of Dera Sacha Sauda , accused Krishan Lal, Prabandhak of Dera
Sacha Sauda and accused Krishan Lal and Nirmal Singh, carpenters of
Dera entered into criminal conspiracy to kill Ram Chander Chhattarpati
and in pursuance of said criminal conspiracy, accused Krishan Lal gave
revolver and walkie-talkie set to accused Kuldeep Singh and Nirmal
Singh in the presence of Baba Gurmeet Singh and thereafter, accused
Kuldeep Singh and Nirmal Singh fired shot at Ram Chander Chhattarpati
outside his house resulting into death of Ram Chander Chhattarpati on
account of gun shot injuries. Accordingly, supplementary charge-sheet
was filed on making out involvement of accused Baba Gurmeet Singh @
Maharajt Gurmeet Singh @ Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh, Chief of Dera
Sacha Sauda, Sirsa in the murder of deceased Ram Chander Chhattarpati
and final report was filed by the CBI in the competent court of
jurisdiction.
6. Copies of final report filed u/s 173 Cr.P.C and the relied
upon documents were supplied to the accused as envisaged u/s 207
Cr.P.C. and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions vide order
dated 27.10.2007 passed by the then Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI,
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 14
Haryana-cum-ACJM, Ambala.
Charges framed against the accused
7. On finding a prima-facie case, all the accused were charge-
sheeted for the commission of offence punishable under Section 120-B
IPC and accused Kuldeep Singh and Nirmal Singh were also charge-
sheeted for the commission of offence u/s 302 IPC and further accused
Baba Gurmeet Singh and Krishan Lal have also been charge-sheeted for
the commission of offence punishable under sections 302/120-B IPC and
further accused Nirmal Signh has also been charge sheeted for committing
offence punishable under section 25/27 of the Arms Act and further
accused Krishan Lal has also charge-sheeted for the commission of
offence under Section 29/30 of the Arms Act, vide order dated 12.12.2008
passed by the court of Shri A.K. Verma, the then learned ASJ-1/Special
Judge, CBI at Ambala and the accused pleaded not guilty to the charges
framed against them and accordingly claimed trial.
Prosecution evidence
8. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined as many
as 46 witnesses. and the gist of prosecution evidence is as under :-
9. PW-1 Balwant Singh, who is working as Lecturer in
Government School and is stated to have remained associated with
Taraksheel Society, Haryana has deposed regarding receiving of an
anonymous letter in May 2002, containing allegations regarding sexual
exploitation of sadhvis in Dera Sacha Sauda by Baba Gurmeet Ram
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 15
Rahim Singh. He has also deposed that on 17.05.2002 similar type of
letter was published in Amar Ujala (Hindi) containing the same
allegations and that similar type of letter was published in Punjab Kesri,
Karnal edition on 19.05.2002. He has, inter alia, also deposed that after
some days, Sohan Lal along with 10-12 persons came to his house and
asked him about the source of said letter and that after some days one Ran
Pal, Virender Kumar along with 10-15 persons also came to his house and
they also inquired from him about the source of said letter and that he told
them that he had received the letter through post. He has also deposed
about other incident whereby followers of Dera Sacha Sauda pressured
him to disclose the source of letter and asked him to beg pardon for
circulating the letter and that they told him to seek apology by issuing
press note because there are lacs of followers of Dera Sacha Sauda and
they can do anything. He also stated that in September/October, 2002, he
received summons from crime branch and made statement before
Inspector and that he also received summons from Court at Kurukshetra.
10. PW-2 Raja Ram Handiaya, who is also serving as Teacher
in Government School and stated to the associated with Taraksheel
Society, has also deposed that in May, 2002 he received anonymous letter
addressed to the then Prime Minister and purported to have been written
by some sadhvi containing allegations regarding exploitation of girls in
the dera by Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh. He has also deposed that in
June, 2002 Amar Nath Arora along with some other persons came to his
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 16
house and asked and threatened him to disclose the source of the letter
and they also told that they had received orders from Baba Gurmeet Ram
Rahim Singh to collect the letter from concerned person and that who may
be found in the possession of letter he should be eliminated as per order of
Guruji of Dera Sacha Sauda. He has also deposed that he was attacked by
large number of persons with lathis and dandas on 02.06.2002 and that he
continued to receive threats from said persons Amar Nath Arora, Mahi Pal
Rana etc.
11. PW-3 Anshul Chhattarpati, who is son of deceased Ram
Chander Chhatarpati, has given eyewitness account of occurrence dated
24.10.2002 wherein his father, namely, Ram Chander Chhatarpati was
shot at by two assailants outside their house in Sirsa on that day. He has
also brought on record copies of newspaper ‘Poora Sach’ published by his
father as Mark-PW3/1 to Mark-PW3/21 and stated that his father had
published news items on 30.05.2002 in respect of sexual exploitation of
sadhvis of the dera and that after publication of this news item, his father
started receiving threats from dera people. He has also brought on record
photocopy Mark-PW3/22 of the letter written by his father to SP, Sirsa to
provide him security and the same was handed over by him to the CBI
vide memo Ex.PW3/B. He has also identified signature of his grandfather
Sohna Ram on letter Ex.PW3/C dated 08.11.2002. He has also stated that
on 03.12.2002, he wrote a letter to Chief Minister Haryana complaining
that the State Police is not conducting the investigation fairly and that no
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 17
action was taken on his letter and on 10.02.2003 they filed writ petition in
the Hon'ble High Court with the prayer to refer the matter to CBI for
investigation and the same was allowed and the matter was referred to the
CBI for investigation.
12. PW-4 Raj Kumar Sethi, who is stated to be working as
correspondent for Fatehbad based evening newspaper ‘Lekha Jokha’ has
stated that a news item titled ‘Sant Ke Khilaf Uthta Bawal’ was published
in newspaper Lekha Jokha on 06.06.2002 and write up was an analysis
regarding the sexual exploitation of the sadhvis by the head of Dera Sacha
Sauda Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh and the violent activities of the dera
followers and the said write up was authored by him and when the
newspaper ‘Lekha Jokha’ containing news item was circulated in the
evening, many dera followers along with weapon and kerosene oil came
to house and that as he had come to know before hand that dera followers
were collecting with weapons so he and his parents left the home for an
unknown place and when the agitators did not find him at his house, they
left for the house of Editor, namely, Madan Bansal and the agitated dera
followers started beating Madan Bansal and on account of the
intervention of some local people, the dera followers did not succeed in
their designs and left the place and that after leaving the home of Madan
Bansal, the agitators reached the office of their newspaper situated at Anaj
Mandi Fatehabad and broke open the locks of the office and ransacked it
and caused loss to the tune of Rs. 3 lacs and the Editor got an FIR
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 18
registered against the agitators and that the dera followers, by exercising
their influence with the local police and administration, got an FIR
registered against him and Mr. Bansal. He further stated that dera people
gheraoed the police station and sat on Dharna in front of the police station
and he came to know that dera followers, by pressurizing Mr. Bansal, also
made him to apologize for his act and he came to know of this fact when
he joined his office.
13. PW-5 Aridaman, who is complainant in this case, has also
given an eyewitness account of the incident of 24.10.2002, wherein his
father Ram Chander Chhatarpati was shot at by two assailants outside
their house in Sirsa and accordingly brought on record his statement dated
24.10.2002 bearing his signature as Ex.PW5/A. He has also deposed that
police officials had lifted the blood stained earth from the spot and had
put the same in a plastic container and a memo Ex.PW5/B was prepared
in this regard. He has also deposed that police officials had also taken into
possession one parcel of clothes of his father and one plastic container
containing the bullet vide memo Ex.PW5/C. This witness has also
identified the clothes i.e. trouser with belt Ex.MO/1 and shirt Ex.MO/2.
He has also stated that State Police had not conducted the investigation
properly in this case and it has shielded the dera head and on account of
same his brother Anshul had also filed a writ petition in the High Court.
14. PW-6 Dr. Dale Singh, Medical Officer, who had examined
injured Ram Chander Chhatarpati at General Hospital, Sirsa immediately
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 19
after the occurrence, has brought on record copy of MLR of injured Ram
Chander Chhatarpati as Ex.PW6/A and pictorial diagram of the seat of
injuries as Ex.PW6/B. He has also stated that Dr.J.P.Chaudhary was the
surgeon in the hospital and he was called by him as he had received a
telephonic call in the causality ward even prior to the patient had come at
the hospital, informing him that a journalist had been shot at and Dr.
J.P.Chaudhary was present at the casualty ward and the he was requested
to stay as his services would be required at the time of medical
examination and treatment of the patient and accordingly he had stayed
back and the witness has identified portion of bed head ticket written by
him as Ex.PW6/C and with that of Dr. J.P.Chaudhry as Ex.PW6/D. He has
also deposed that police official also visited General Hospital, Sirsa and
he handed over copy of MLR, a parcel containing a bullet and another
parcel containing clothes of the injured and further stated that only one
seal used to be kept in General Hospital, which is called mortuary seal,
which used to remain in custody of one Kallu, employee in the mortuary,
who used to affix the seal in his presence. He has also stated that patient
had suffered injuries on the abdomen as well as chest and necessary
expert facilities were not available at General Hospital, Sirsa and
accordingly they referred the patient to PGI, Rohtak. This witness has also
brought on record application moved by police on 24.10.2002 as
Ex.PW6/E, endorsement made on said application as Ex.PW6/F and Ruka
sent by him as Ex.PW6/G.
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 20
15. PW-7 Kewal Singh, Department of Telecoms, Government
of India, has brought on record renewal slip Ex.PW7/A in respect of
licence No. P-4220/1-8 of M/s Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa, vide which
licence was renewed upto March 2003 on 23.05.2002. This witness has
brought license renewal register pertaining entries from P-4116 to P4279
and as per record, licence in question i.e. P-4220/1-8 pertains to M/s Dera
Sacha Sauda Sirsa Haryana as per official register, M/s Dera Sacha Sauda
was issued licence for two fixed stations and six hand-held set for validity
upto 31.03.2001 on 24.12.2000 and it was renewed on 29.03.2001 upto
31.03.2002 and the said licence was again renewed upto March 2003 on
23.05.2002 by the then Engineer and this license was further renewed
upto March 2004 on 01.04.2003 and the witness has also brought on
record photocopy of register duly attested by him as Ex.PW7/B.
16. PW-8 Dr. Rajinder Kumar Karwasra, Head of the
Department of Surgery at PGIMS, Rohtak, who had conducted surgery on
injured Ram Chander Chhatarpati along with Dr.Madan Gopal and other
doctors, has brought on record operation notes as Ex.PW8/A. This witness
has further deposed that as per record, Ram Chander Chhatarpati had fire-
arm injuries on his person and he was in serious condition and all the
injuries were dangerous to life. He has also deposed that injured patient
remained admitted in PGIMS, Rohtak till 08.11.2002 when on the request
of patient’s relatives, he was discharged to take him to Apollo Hospital,
Delhi. This witness has also brought on record original record of the
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 21
patient collectively marked as Ex.PW8/B and also brought on record letter
dated 17.05.2007 addressed to him by Dr. S.S.Lohchab as Ex.PW8/C.
Further brought on record certified copy of admission and discharge
register of the Cardiac ICU as Mark-PW8/19 to Mark-PW8/24.
17. PW-9 Dr. Parvin Kumar Singh, Radiologist at PGIMS,
Rohtak, who had conducted radiological examination of patient Ram
Chander Chhatarpati, has brought on record his report Ex.PW9/1. He has
also stated that CT scan of patient was also conducted under his
supervision and reference slip is Ex.PW9/12 and his report as Ex.PW9/13.
18. PW10 Dr. Chitranjan Behera, Assistant Professor, Maulana
Azad Medical College, who had conducted postmortem examination of
deceased Ram Chander Chhatarpati on 22.11.2002, has brought on record
postmortem report as Ex.PW10/B and also brought on record application
Ex.PW10/A moved by ASI Devender for conducting postmortem
examination of dead body of Ram Chander Chhatarpati and that the
application bears his endorsement and signatures at two points i.e.
Ex.PW10/A1 and Ex.PW10/A2. He has also deposed that the cause of
death in this case was septicemia consequent upon ante mortem gunshot
injuries, which is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature
and all injuries were ante-mortem in nature. He has also deposed that
deformed bullet was found lodged inside the left lower lung and bullet
found was sealed and handed over to the police along with sample seal
and blood in gauze was also sealed and handed over to the police.
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 22
19. PW-11 Dr. Sushil Kumar Jain, who has remained full time
Senior Consultant in Apollo Hospital, has brought on record copy of death
summary of patient Ram Chander Chhatarpati bearing his signature as
Ex.PW11/A and death certificate of Ram Chander Chhatarpati issued by
Apollo Hospital as Ex.PW11/B. He has further deposed that the cause of
death in this case was septicemia with acute renal failure with multi organ
failure due to gunshot injuries. He has also brought on record x-ray film
as Ex.PW11/C and CT Scan film as Ex.PW11/D and stated that X-ray
film and CT scan was taken under his supervision during the course of
treatment of patient Ram Chander Chhatarpati.
20. PW-12 SI Devender, who was posted as ASI at PS Sarita
Vihar, New Delhi at the relevant time, has deposed that Apollo Hospital
falls under the jurisdiction of PS Sarita Vihar and on 08.11.2002 a
telephonic message was received at the police station about the admission
of Ram Chander Chhatrapati, who had been referred by PGI, Rohtak on
account of gunshot injuries received on 24.10.2002 and an entry was
made in the DDR register maintained at the police station and accordingly
brought on record copy of DDR entry as Ex.PW12/A. He has also brought
on record application moved by him as Ex.PW12/B to CMO, Apollo
Hospital for giving the opinion and the opinion of the doctor as
Ex.PW12/B1. He has also brought on record statement of nephew,
namely, Mukesh Kumar of injured, recorded by him as Ex.PW12/C.
Further stated that on 21.11.2002, he got the information at Police Station
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 23
that Ram Chander Chhatrapati had died during treatment and DD entry
No.20-A in this respect was also recorded in the DDR register and copy
of the same is Ex.PW12/D. He also deposed that he obtained death
summary and death certificate of Ram Chander Chhatarpati from hospital
and on 22.11.2002 he took dead body of Ram Chander Chhatarpati from
Apollo Hospital in an Ambulance and took the same to AIIMS mortuary
and moved an application Ex.PW10/A and after postmortem examination,
the doctor handed over the dead body to him, which in turn he handed
over to Roop Kumar, nephew of the deceased vide receipt Ex.PW12/H.
He also stated that he also conducted inquest proceedings and prepared
the inquest report Ex.PW12/E and that he recorded statements of Mukesh
Kumar and Roop Kumar at the time of inquest proceedings and the same
are Ex.PW12/F and Ex.PW12/G. He has also deposed that doctor handed
over to him one sealed plastic container containing bullet led and one
sealed envelope containing blood stained gauze and one sample seal of
AIIMS, which he had handed over to Inspector Jaipal Singh of Haryana
Police vide memo Ex.PW12/J and that his signatures are at point-A and
that the said memo was also attested by HC Satpal Singh of Haryana
Police.
21. PW-13 Retired Sub-Inspector Dale Singh, has brought on
record copy of application dated 08.11.2002 submitted by Sohna Ram
Sangha, resident of Darbi, Tehsil and District Sirsa, to SP Sirsa as
Ex.PW13/A and report made by CIA Inspector as Ex.PW13/B.
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 24
22. PW-14 Jagjit Singh, Arms Licensing Clerk, office of SDM,
Sirsa, who had brought the summoned record, has deposed that as per
entry No.908 dated 24.02.1987, an arm licence No.908 for non-prohibited
revolver was issued in the name of accused Krishan Lal son of Bhagwan
Dass, resident of Dera Sacha Sauda, Kalyan Nagar, Sirsa and the licence
was issued by competent authority, the then SDM, Sirsa and as per record,
purchase period for the purchase of revolver was 26.12.2001, which was
extended upto 26.08.2002 by the then SDM and accordingly brought on
record photocopy of relevant pages of the entries as Ex.PW14/A to
Ex.PW14/B.
23. PW-15 Ran Singh, Assistant PLA Branch, Office of District
Magistrate, Sirsa, who had brought the summoned record i.e. arms licence
register, has deposed that as per entry No.436, licence No.908-II has been
entered in the name of Krishan Lal son of Bhagwan Dass resident of Dera
Sacha Sauda, Kalyan Nagar, Sirsa for N.P.B revolver and as per record, a
revolver No.13751-FG is entered in his name and as per the seal of the
District Magistrate, .32 bore revolver No.13751 has been shown to have
been purchased by Krishan Lal from Field Gun Factory, Kanpur and this
entry is signed by the then District Magistrate, Sirsa and brought on
record true attested copy of relevant page of register as Ex.PW15/A. He
has also deposed that report Ex.PW15/B made by Mehar Chand Mehta,
Superintendent, Office of DM, Sirsa as per official record and further
stated that the original arm licence in the name of Krishan Lal also
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 25
contains the entry about the extension of period given to the licence
holder for the purchase of the revolver and accordingly brought on record
licence Ex.PW15/C and that the licence contains the photograph of the
applicant/licence holder under the seal of SDM, Sirsa.
24. PW-16 HC Amarpal, who is stated to be on patrolling duty
in the evening time on 24.10.2002, has deposed about the sequence of
events leading to apprehending of one of the two assailants when the
assailants were trying to escape and deposed that the person was
apprehended by them at the spot, who disclosed his name Kuldeep Singh
son of Darsan Singh. He has also deposed that on 26.10.2002 they started
from police post Khairpur towards Begu Road and reached near Dera
Sacha Sauda and thereafter they laid naka near Jagdamba Paper Mill
Sirsa. He further deposed that in the meantime, one Maruti Car was seeing
coming from the side of Rangri Road and Incharge of the police party
gave a signal to the car driver to stop the car and at that time Constable
Dharam Chand, HC Jagminder were also present and as soon as the
Maruti Car stopped, they identified the driver of the car to be the same
person who had escaped on scooter on 24.10.2002 when Kuldeep was
apprehended near the house of Ram Chander Chhattarpati and then
personal search of said person was carried out by the Incharge. He has
further deposed that one revolver along with cartridges were recovered
from pocket of his pant and the person disclosed his name as Nirmal
Singh.
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 26
25. PW-17 HC Dharam Chand, has also deposed on the lines
of PW16 HC Amarpal regarding apprehending of Kuldeep Singh near the
place of occurrence on 24.10.2002, further apprehending of accused
Nirmal Singh on 26.10.2002 and recovery of .32 revolver along with 12
cartridges from Nirmal Singh at the time when he was apprehended. This
witness has also brought on record disclosure statement of accused
Kuldeep as Ex.PW17/A and disclosure statement of accused Nirmal Singh
as Ex.PW17/B.
26. PW-18 EHC Mohal Lal, draftsman, has brought on record
scaled site plan Ex.PW18/A prepared at the instance of Aridaman.
27. PW-19 Vishwajeet, who is stated to be editor of the
newspaper Poora Sach after demise of Ram Chander Chhatarpati, has
deposed that they used to publish news regarding all the activities of the
city, Sirsa and also published news regarding Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa
including news regarding the CBI enquiry ordered by the Hon’ble High
Court against the dera and that dera followers used to threaten Ram
Chander Chhattrapati as well as the staff of Poora Sach. He has also
deposed that case under the Prevention of Atrocities SC/ST was also
foisted against Ram Chander Chhatarpati by one Krishan Chand at the
instance of dera followers and brought on record certified copy of
complaint filed by Krishan Chand against Ram Chander Chhattrapati as
Mark-PW19/1 and cuttings of the news items published in the newspaper
Poora Sach regarding the activities of the dera followers as Mark-PW19/2
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 27
to Mark-PW19/13 and the said documents were taken into police
possession vide recovery memo as Ex.PW19/A. He has also brought on
record attested copy of certificate of registration of the newspaper as
Ex.PW19/B. Further stated that on account of news items being published
in newspaper Poora Sach, two persons had fired shots at Ram Chander
Chhatarpati on 24.10.2002.
28. PW-20 Dr. Amod Kumar Singh, Medical Officer, who had
conducted polygraph examination of three subjects, namely, Avtar Singh,
Inder Sain and Krishan Lal, has brought on record copy of report
Ex.PW20/B. He has also brought on record copy of informed consent
obtained from the subjects in writing as Ex.PW20/1to Ex.PW20/3 and
also brought on record forwarding letter bearing signature of
Dr.S.C.Mital, the then Incharge, CFSL, New Delhi as Ex.PW20/A.
29. PW-21 Lekh Raj, Advocate, has deposed that Ram Chander
Chhatarpati used to publish news in Poora Sach about Dera Sacha Sauda,
Sirsa and its head Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh including news items about
an anonymous letter by a sadhvi regarding sexual expoitation of sadhvis
by the dera head and after the above mentioned news item pertaining to
the anonymous letter was published in Poora Sach, Ram Chander
Chhatarpati started getting threats from Dera Sacha Sauda. He has, inter-
alia, also deposed about apprehending of accused Nirmal Singh by police
party on 26.10.2002 in his presence and recovery of .32 revolver along
with five empties and seven live cartridges and other articles i.e. walky
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 28
talky set, khukhri, knife etc. from accused Nirmal Singh and brought on
record memo Ex.PW21/2 vide which parcel containing pistol and the
cartridges was taken into police possession and also memo Ex.PW21/3
vide which other articles were taken into police possession.
30. PW-22 ASI Sombir Singh, Moharrar Malkhana has
deposed regarding depositing of sealed parcel containing blood stained
earth, one sealed parcel containing the clothes of deceased Ram Chander
Chhatarpati, sealed parcel containing bullet led, sealed parcel containing .
32 bore revolver, parcel containing five empties and seven live cartridges
in the Malkhana on 25.10.2002 and 26.10.2002, regarding sending of
afore stated parcels along with sample seals to FSL, Madhuban through
HC Ram Niwas and further stated that HC Ram Niwas, after depositing
the said parcels at FSL, handed over him the receipt thereof and further
stated that during the period case property remained with him, the same
remained intact. He has also deposed that on 22.11.2002 Inspector Jaipal
Singh deposited with him one sealed parcel containing bullet led and one
sealed parcel containing blood in gauge and that on 02.12.2002 he sent
these parcels along with sample seal to FSL, Madhuban through
Constable Hawa Singh, who deposited the same on the same day and
during this period case property remained intact.
31. PW-23 Diwan Singh, retired SI, has deposed that on
30.10.2002 accused Krishan Lal made disclosure statement Ex.PW23/A in
his presence and got recovered scooter and one arms licence of .32 bore
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 29
revolver in pursuance to disclosure statement and that scooter and his RC
were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PW23/B and licence
was taken into police possession vide recovery memo Ex.PW23/C.
32. PW-24 Krishan Kumar Sharma, the then Reader to District
Magistrate, Sirsa, namely, D Suresh, IAS, has brought on record sanction
order Ex.PW24/A passed by the then District Magistrate, whereby
sanction was accorded to prosecute Nirmal Singh under the Arms Act.
33. PW-25 Deepak Kumar, shopkeeper, who claimed to be by
the side of injured Ram Chander Chhatarpati at the time of recording of
his treatment at PGIMS, Rohtak, has deposed that when Anshul inquired
about the well being of Ram Chander Chhatarpati, the latter replied that
what he feared had happened and he had been shoot at at the behest of
Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh. He further deposed that when they were
inside ICU, SI Ram Chander entered ICU and enquired Chhatarpati as to
whether he wanted to make any statement and Ram Chander Chhatarpati
stated to SI Ram Chander in their presence that he was the Editor of the
newspaper Poora Sach and he had been publishing news in respect of
Dera Sacha Sauda in his newspaper Poora Sach and earlier also he used to
get threats from Chief of Dera Sacha Sauda who had hatched the
conspiracy and he was shot at in pursuance to that conspiracy. He has also
deposed that SI Ram Chander had not recorded the statement of Ram
Chander Chhatarpati properly. He has also stated that accused Kuldeep
Singh suffered disclosure statement and accused got recovered mobile
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 30
phone from his house, which was taken into police possession vide
recovery memo Ex.PW25/C. He also stated that accused Nirmal Singh
also got recovered a toy pistol in pursuance to his disclosure statement
and the same was taken into police possession vide recovery memo
Ex.PW25/D.
34. PW-26 HC Hawa Singh, has corroborated the statement of
PW22 MHC Sombir Singh regarding depositing of two sealed parcels
with DFSL Madhuban along with sample seals on 02.12.2002 after taking
the same from MHC Sombir Singh. He has also stated that during the
period these parcels remained with him, the same were not allowed to be
tampered with.
35. PW-27 Dr. K.P.S. Kushwaha, who had remained posted as
Assistant Director (Serology), has brought on record reports Ex.PW27/A
and Ex.PW27/B prepared by him. He has deposed that four sealed parcels
marked 1, 2, 3 and 7 were received in the serology division on 08.04.2003
from the ballistics division of laboratory and the exhibits contained in
these parcels were examined for the presence of blood on them and blood
thus detected was further subjected to serology test to determine its
species of origin and based on the examination, results were obtained as
mentioned in his statement and further stated that after the examination,
the exhibits along with their original reports were sealed with the seal of
Sero. Further stated that as per serological analysis, the blood detected on
Ex.1 blood stained earth, Ex.2-a shirt, Ex.2-b pant and Ex.7 gauze piece
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 31
was found to be of human origin.
36. PW-28 L.S.Yadav, Assistant Director, FSL has deposed
that five sealed parcels in case FIR No.685 dated 24.10.2002, PS City
Sirsa were received on 11.11.2002 through HC Ram Niwas and two
sealed parcels were received in the laboratory on 02.12.2002 through
Constable Hawa Singh. Apart from giving description of sealed parcels
received, he has brought on record his report dated 28.04.2003 as
Ex.PW28/A
37. PW-29 Dr. Jayant Kumar Maheshwari has stated that on
26.10.2002 SI Ram Chander moved an application seeking opinion about
the fitness of Ram Chander, who was admitted in PGIMS Rohtak, by
moving an application and on the said application he gave his opinion
about the fitness of the patient vide opinion as Ex.PW29/B declaring the
patient to be fit to make statement.
38. PW-30 DSP Vijay Singh, who had carried out
investigations initially, has deposed about investigation done by him. He
had deposed that on 24.10.2002, he was posted as Incharge PP Khairpur,
District Sirsa and at about 9:15 pm he was present near Hanuman Mandir,
Khaipur and Aridaman met him there, who informed him that his father
has been shot at and he got recorded his statement Ex.PW5/A which was
read over to him and also appended his signature at point-A on the said
statement and that he attested the statement vide attestation Ex.PW30/1.
He has further deposed that he sent the same through Constable Shiv
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 32
Kumar to the Police Station City, Sirsa for registration of FIR and police
proceedings are Ex.PW30/2. Further stated that FIR No.685 dated
24.10.2002 under Sections 307/34 IPC and Section 25/27 of the Arms Act
was registered in PS City Sirsa and further brought on record endorsement
made by SI Ram Chander as Ex.PW30/3 as he had seeing him writing and
signing and also brought on record FIR as Ex/.PW30/4. He has also
deposed about receiving of two parcels in connection with this case from
doctor, which was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW5/C. He has
also deposed that site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared and
the same is Ex.PW30/7. He has also deposed other aspects of the
investigation including arrest of Kuldeep Singh, depositing of case
property with the MHC, apprehending of accused Nirmal Singh and
Kuldeep Singh, joining of accused Krishan Lal in the investigation and
recoveries got effected by said accused in pursuance to the disclosure
statements etc.
39. PW Khatta Singh, who is stated to be witness to the
criminal conspiracy, has been examined as PW31. Initially this witness
was examined in court in the year 2012 and did not support the
prosecution case and accordingly learned PP for the CBI sought
permission and was allowed to cross-examine this witness and
accordingly witness was confronted with portions of his statement
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C and statement recorded under Section
164 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, this witness moved an application under Section
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 33
311 Cr.P.C. before this court on 16.09.2017, thereby seeking to recall him
as a witness for further examination in the interest of justice, but the
application was dismissed by this court vide order dated 06.01.2018.
Thereafter applicant-witness Khatta Singh preferred revision petition
bearing No.274 of 2018 before the Hon’ble High Court and Hon’ble High
Court, vide its order dated 23.04.2018 passed in Criminal Revision
No.274 of 2018 & the connected revision No.3592 of 2017, allowed the
prayer of revisionist-applicant and accordingly this witness was recalled
to record his testimony in compliance of the orders passed by Hon’ble
High Court. It is also a matter of record that accused preferred Special
Leave to Appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the order
dated 23.04.2018 passed by Hon’ble High Court, but the same was
dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. During the course of further
examination of this witness, he has fully supported the prosecution case
and came up with the version that he could not depose truly earlier as he
was under tremendous pressure on account of the fact that threats were
extended to him. This witness has also been cross-examined at length by
the defence.
40. PW-32 Inspector Sube Singh (Retired), who was posted
as SHO, PS City, Sirsa, in the year 2002, has stated that report under
Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C was filed in the court against accused Kuldeep
Singh, Nirmal Singh and Krishan Lal. He has also deposed that during the
course of investigation, he moved an application Ex.PW32/1 to issue the
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 34
production warrants against accused Krishan Lal and the order passed by
the court of learned ACJM, Sirsa in this regard is Ex.PW32/2.
41. PW-33 ASI Ram Niwas, has also corroborated statement of
PW22 Sombir Singh, MHC regarding depositing of sealed parcels with
DFSL, Madhuban after taking the same from Sombir Singh, Malkhana
Moharrar on 11.11.2002/08.11.2002 and he has also stated that the articles
remained intact in his possession and did not allow anyone to tamper the
same.
42. PW-34 Jaipal Singh, DSP (Retired), who had partly
investigated the matter during the investigation done by local police, has
also deposed about the investigation carried out by him. He has brought
on record various aspects of the investigation including sending of special
report Ex.PW34/4, receiving of sealed parcels containing bullet recovered
from dead body of deceased Ram Chander Chhatarpati and parcel
containing blood stained gauge piece, depositing of case property with the
MHC of Sirsa etc.
43. PW-35 SI Ram Singh, has deposed regarding sending of
special report of case FIR No.685 dated 24.10.2002, PS City Sirsa to the
Illaqa/ Duty Magistrate and accordingly brought on record report
Ex.PW34/4 on which Duty Magistrate had made endorsement as
Ex.PW35/1.
44. PW-36 Vijay Kumar, has deposed that he was owner of
Maruti Car bearing registration No. DL-04-CC-1053 Model 1993 and that
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 35
he had sold that Car to Gurjant Singh son of Bachan Singh and he had
executed an affidavit as Ex.PW36/A on 08.10.2010 in this regard and
possession of said car was also delivered by him to said Gurjant Singh.
45. PW-37 Madan Bansal, who had started publishing evening
newspapers by the name of ‘Lekha Jokha’ on 20.10.2001, has deposed
that on 06.06.2002 an article was published in his newspaper with the
heading ‘Sant Ke Khilaf Uthta Babal’ with regard to the sexual
exploitation by the Dera Sacha Sauda chief in the dera premises and when
the newspaper was published, the dera followers started gathering and
they were carrying kerosene and deadly weapons and firstly they went to
the house of R.K.Sethi and no one in the house of R.K.Sethi was
available, thereafter they came to his house and threatened him and
thereafter they went inside his office and ransacked the same and
damaged the articles causing loss of 2 ½-3 lacs and he then went to the
police station and lodged FIR against the said persons and next day
thousands of the followers gheraoed and did not allow the police officials
to carry on their work and next day he was taken to CIA staff by the
police and was kept there during the night time and thereafter his
signatures were obtained on an affidavit by the police and he was forced
to sign the said affidavit of compromise. He has further stated he was
taken to Arorvans Dharamshala where DSP City and ADC, besides
thousands of person were present, who were the followers of the Dera
Sacha Sauda and thereafter, he was forced to beg pardon for lodging FIR
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 36
and a writing was scribed there and he was forced to sign the same under
compelling circumstances. He has also stated that damage was caused to
his office and he along with his family members were threatened by the
dera followers including the above stated persons because he had been
publishing news against the working of Dera Sacha Sauda.
46. PW-38 Balwinder Kumar, the then JMIC, has deposed that
on 22.06.2007 he was posted as JMIC/Duty Magistrate at Chandigarh and
on that day an application Ex.PW38/1 was moved by M.Narayanan, DIG,
CBI for recording the statement of Khatta Singh son of Jhanda Singh
under Section 164 Cr.P.C and thereafter witness Khatta Singh was
produced before him and all the CBI Officers were asked to go outside the
court and he made inquiries as to whether he (witness) was ready to make
statement and if he was making such statement without any pressure, then
the witness replied that he was making the statement of his own and
without any kind of pressure. Further deposed that thereafter, he gave half
an hour time to the witness to think before making statement and in this
regard PW38 has brought on record certificate Ex.PW38/2. Further stated
that at the time of recording the statement of PW Khatta Singh, no one
else except himself and PW Khatta Singh were present in the Court and in
this regard he brought on record certificate as Ex.PW38/3. Further stated
that thereafter, after satisfying himself that the witness wanted to make
statement voluntarily and without there being any kind of pressure on
him, he started recording the statement of witness Khatta Singh. He
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 37
further deposed that DIG M.Narayan had identified the witness Khatta
Singh and a certificate Ex.PW38/4 was given by him. Further stated that
statement of witness Khatta Singh was recorded by him with his own
hand-writing verbatim without there being any addition or omission from
his side and correctly as per the version and accordingly witness brought
on record true copy of statement of PW Khatta Singh as Ex.PW31/B.
Further deposed that each and every page of the statement Ex.PW31/C
recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was signed by PW Khatta Singh after
recording of statement and after the same was read over to him and he
admitted the same to have been correctly recorded. Further stated that
after recording of statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C, copy of same was
supplied to DIG as per his request and the papers were ordered to be
sealed and sent to the court and an order Ex.PW38/5 was passed by him in
this regard.
47. PW-39 Bhagwan Lal Soni, Additional DGP, has stated
that on 09.01.2009 he was posted as DIG, CBI at Chandigarh and S.P.
Singh was posted as SP, SCB Branch, CBI at Chandigarh at that time. He
further stated that on 09.01.2009, S.P.Singh, SP SCB appeared before him
along with one Khatta Singh and they brought an application signed by
Khatta Singh and also one hand written letter along with an envelope and
the then SP told him about the letter received by Khatta Singh regarding
threat to his life and his family. Further stated that he had gone through
the contents of letter Ex.PW31/C, which were reiterated by Khatta Singh
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 38
and thereafter, he wrote a letter to DGP, Punjab for providing security to
Khatta Singh and his family. The witness has brought on record copy of
letter written by him as Ex.PW39/A.
48. PW-40 Gurupdesh Bhullar, who was working with Punjab
Kesri Group of newspaper in the year 2007, has deposed about covering
the news items for Punjab Kesri in the area of Chandigarh as Senior
Correspondent and also deposed that on 27.09.2007 he had covered a
press conference in a Hotel in Chandigarh to be held by Khatta Singh and
proceedings summary of the press was reported by him and published in
the newspaper on 28.09.2007 with the photograph of that press conference
and accordingly witness brought on record news item as Ex.PW40/1 and
stated that the news item contains his name as the reporter and that of
Viney Kumar as Photographer. He has also stated that said news item also
contains photographs of Khatta Singh and that he identified him at point-
A in the photograph.
49. PW-41 Amit Sharma, Deputy Manager (Legal), The
Tribune, who had brought the copy of the newspaper dated 28.09.2007
and of 19.08.2007 and stated that the news item Mark PW31/C (two
clippings) was published in the newspapers dated 28.09.2007 and this
news item relates to a press conference dated 27.09.2007 and the news
item was published with the heading ‘I stand by what I say, Khatta Singh’.
Further stated that Ramanjit Singh Sidhu was the correspondent of the
above said news item and now he has resigned from the job.
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 39
50. PW-42 Bhartesh Singh Thakur, Senior Correspondent,
Hindustan Times, Chandigarh, who had brought copy of newspaper dated
28.09.2007, has brought on record attested photocopy of new item Mark-
PW41/1 published in newspaper dated 28.09.2007 and the said news item
relates to a press conference dated 27.09.2007 and the said news item was
published with the heading ‘Dera chief's ex-driver seeks niece's release’
and stated that said news item was published in their newspaper dated
28.09.2007 and the correspondent who had covered the press conference
dated 27.09.2007 as per news item has already resigned and is no more
working in their office.
51. PW-43 Dr. Armaandeep Singh, who remained
investigating officer of this case pursuant to handing over of the
investigation to the CBI, has also deposed about various aspects of the
investigation. He has brought on record FIR registered by the CBI as
Ex.PW43/1, copy of order dated 10.11.2003 of the Hon’ble High Court as
Ex.PW43/2. He has also deposed that he visited the scene of crime,
collected documents from the local police, examined the witnesses and
collected other relevant documents and Inspector M.S.Yadav, Inspector
Devender Singh, Inspector R.C.Dogra and other staff assisted him in the
investigation of this case. He has also deposed that after his transfer, the
investigation of this case was transferred to Satish Dagar, the then DSP.
52. PW-44 Dr. Asha Srivastava, Senior Scientific Officer,
CFSL, New Delhi, who had conducted polygraph examination of subject
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 40
Ram Chander, has brought on record her report dated 18.05.2017 as
Ex.PW44/A. She has also deposed that the IO of the case identified the
subject and presented the case and the main issue regarding polygraph
examination in detail and she had taken pre-test interview of Ram
Chander and subject gave his written consent by signing a consent form.
She further stated that during the polygraph examination, the relevant
issue and his answer given by subject are recorded in her report and eight
relevant questions were asked to the subject and thereafter she came to the
opinion enumerated in her report dated 18.05.2007 and also stated that
questions No.1 to 7 revealed deceptive response and Ram Chander was
deceptive in his answer on the issue from 1 to 7.
53. PW-45 Satish Dagar, Additional SP, who has partly
investigated the matter, has also deposed about various aspects of the
investigation done by investigating agency. He has deposed that
M.Narayanan, the then DIG was made the Chief Investigating Officer of
the cases relating to Dera Sacha Sauda and he continued to assist him till
filing of charge-sheet in the cases and during investigation he seized
various documents and also recorded statements of some witnesses and
after completion of investigation, charge-sheet against accused persons
was filed in the court under joint signatures of the then DIG and himself.
54. PW-46 M.Narayanan, who remained Chief Investigating
Officer of the case from April 2007 till filing of supplementary charge-
sheet, has also deposed about investigation done under his supervision.
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 41
He has, inter alia, deposed that he recorded detailed statement of Khatta
Singh on 21.06.2007 which is Ex.PW31/A and recorded correct statement
of facts which were exclusively in the knowledge of Khatta Singh. He has
also deposed that Khatta Singh told him that he was under threat and
pressure from the dera management and the dera management had
obtained his signature on some blank papers and they may misuse the
same and that Khatta Singh decided to make a true statement under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. before a Magistrate and accordingly statement of
Khatta Singh was recorded by Judicial Magistrate, First Class on
22.06.2007 and in this regard copy of application moved by this witness
for recording statement of Khatta Singh by learned JMIC has been
brought on record as Ex.PW38/1 and true copy of statement recorded
under Section 164 Cr.P.C has been brought on record as Ex.PW31/B. He
has further deposed that after analyzing the evidence, challan was filed in
the competent court at Ambala on 30.07.2007 against accused Baba
Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh in addition to accused already charge-sheeted.
55. Thereafter, evidence of the prosecution was closed by learned
Public Prosecutor.
Examination of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
56. After closure of prosecution evidence, all the accused were
examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C and the entire incriminating
evidence/documents appearing against the accused were put to them. All
the accused pleaded innocence and false implication. Accused Kuldeep
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 42
Singh has pleaded that he has been falsely implicated in this case in
collusion and connivance of CBI officials and SI Vijay Singh and all the
PWs are motivated, tutored and manipulated. Further stated that the truth
is that he used to go to meet his close friend Bittu (Suresh) about 9 p.m.,
almost daily after taking his food, Bittu’s house and office was opposite to
Hanuman Mandir on Sirsa-Delhi road and on particular day whilst he was
talking to Bittu, one beard man along with two constables came and asked
him that SHO wanted to talk to him and they took him on foot walking
about five minutes to a place which was some police station where many
police people and public persons were present and when after about half
an hour, he asked them to let him go to his house, one police officer
threateningly told him that he was wanted in a case and later on in the
morning he came to know that he had been implicated in a case on
attempt to murder of some journalist. He has also pleaded that it will be
very peculiar to the logic and reasons that as the case is in the nature of hit
and run, whether the assailant will get themselves identified by calling
their names before the witnesses if conspiracy is an aspect pressed into
service by the prosecution and it shall be a moot question for deduction of
facts that if alleged incident has taken place in the front of witnesses like
Aridaman, Anshul Chhatarpati or alleged police constables, who nabbed
answering accused, who saw the weapons of offence being delivered or
handed over to the escaping assailant and therefore the whole case against
the answering accused is false and fabricated and targeted towards
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 43
particular institutions and its followers.
57. Further accused Nirmal Singh has also pleaded on the lines of
co-accused Kuldeep Singh and therefore the same need not be repeated
here again. Further accused Nirmal Singh has also pleaded that in the
nature of alleged case, it is impossible and improbable to remember the
faces of assailants in the night from the alleged bulb which is placed at
distance and moreover identification is pre-condition for trial in this case
which is not done willfully and same is pointer towards false implication
and fabrication of evidence to implicate falsely.
58. Further accused Krishan Lal has also pleaded that all the
prosecution witness are motivated, tutored and manipulated and he has
been falsely implicated. He has further pleaded that the fact is that on
25.10.2002 at about 7:00 am SI Vijay Singh along with other police
officials came to his house and asked for his licenced revolver on the
pretext to verify if the same has been used in murder of Ram Chander
Chhatarpati and that he asked him to give receipt of taking the same, upon
which all the said police officials threatened and threshed him before his
family members and neighbours and took his licenced revolver and asked
to take the same by coming in police station in the evening and when he
went along with respectable people, he was threatened to be implicated
and asked to go back and not to come back again. It is also pleaded that
whole investigation is tainted and illegal and against the mandate of
fairness of the investigation.
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 44
59. Further accused Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh has pleaded that
witnesses are inimical towards Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa and highly
interested. He has further pleaded that before filing the present false
charge-sheet against him, he had never heard or signed or read the alleged
newspaper Poora Sach. The investigation of this case conducted by the
CBI is unfair, tainted and biased. That he had no grudge and enmity
against Ram Chander Chhatarpati and Ram Chander Chhatarpati was not
known to him and he never talked with him in any manner. That the CBI
officers have inimically investigated this case and falsely implicated him
in this case in collusion with anti dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa forces and that
he did not conspire murder of Ram Chander Chhatarpati. Further pleaded
that Khatta Singh never worked/remained as his driver and now Khatta
Singh has deposed falsely under the pressure and threat of the CBI for
extraneous reasons and he has been falsely implicated.
Defence evidence.
60. Thereafter accused were called upon to enter upon their
defence. In their defence evidence, accused have examined 21 witnesses
and the gist of the defence evidence is as under:-
61. DW-1 Roshan Lal Aggarwal deposed that he is practicing
as an Advocate since August, 1976. He was appointed as Notary
Public on 7th of May, 1998 for District Ambala. He has seen the
original affidavit available in the file. It was attested by him on the
presentation of Mr.Khatta Singh, son of Jhanda Singh, resident of
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 45
House No.2, Shah Satnam Singh Nagar, Sirsa, Haryana. Before
attestation, he satisfied himself about the identity of Khatta Singh by
seeing the relevant documents of Khatta Singh i.e. Ration Card and
Voter ID card. Before attestation, He read over the contents of above
affidavit to Khatta Singh. After understanding the same Khatta Singh
admitted the contents of the affidavit to be correct and he signed at
three places on the original affidavit before him. After satisfying
himselself that he is Khatta Singh, he attested the original affidavit.
Thereafter, he entered the same in the register which is maintained by
him at Serial No. l048 dated 29.3.2007 and got his signature in his
register also. The original affidavit bears his signature as well as seal
of Notary as well as seal of attestation. The original affidavit is
already exhibited as Ex.DW31/DB. He has brought the original
register with him and true photocopy of the entries including the
relevant entry is Ex.DW 1/1.
62. DW-2 Charanjit Singh, deposed that he is a practicing
Advocate at Ambala from the year 1998 till today. He had started
practicing as a junior lawyer with Shri J.S.Kohli, Advocate. He had
also worked as junior with Shri Jasmer Chand, Advocate, Ambala.
Now he is practicing as independent lawyer. Shri FC.Aggarwal,
Advocate had expired in the year 2007. As he had seen Shri
FC.Aggarwal writing and signing, therefore he can identify his hand-
writing and signature. He has seen the original criminal revision
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 46
petition against the order dated 30.03.2007 dated 20.04.2007, in this
case and the same bears signature of Shri FC.Aggarwal, Advocate and
he identify the same. He had been lawyer of Khatta Singh and
therefore, he can identify his signature. Aforesaid application also
bears signature of Khatta Singh. Certified copy of the aforesaid
criminal revision petition is Ex.DW2/1. The certified copy of the order
dated 17.8.2007 passed in Criminal Revision No.6 of 2007 passed by
Shri R.K.Saini, Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (CBI)
Haryana is Ex.DW2/2. He has also seen the photo copy of
Vakalatnama of Khatta Singh executed in favour of him and Sampuran
Singh Advocate, which is Ex.DW2/3. Mr. Khatta Singh came to him
to file the aforesaid criminal revision. He had dictated the grounds of
revision petition on instructions of Khatta Singh and got the same
typed on 20.04.2007. Khatta Singh had signed each page of revision
petition in his presence after admitting the contents to have been
correctly typed. Khatta Singh has also appended his signature on
power of attorney in his presence and the power of attorney was also
signed by him and Mr. Sampuran Singh, Advocate. The revision
petition moved by Khatta Singh was dismissed by the court vide order
Ex.DW2/2. He himself had presented the case of the revisionist-
petitioner by advancing the arguments.
63. DW-3 Amar Nath deposed that he has two daughters
namely Jyoti and Sonia. Jyoti had been a teacher from 1999 to 2002 in
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 47
MDN School, Kalyat. Owner and Principal of that school is Vijay
Kumar. Vijay Kumar is Secretary of "Taraksheel Society, Kalayat".
Raja Ram Handia is President of aforesaid society. Vijay Kumar came
to know that his daughter Jyoti wanted to leave the school and wanted
to join school of Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa. Vijay Kumar also came to
know that his daughter Jyoti was also encouraging another teachers to
join school of Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa. In the month of May, 2002,
Vijay Kumar made to read his dauther Jyoti some obscene anonymous
letter. The said anonymous letter contained obscene and filthy
language and thus Jyoti felt annoyed. On returning home, Jyoti told
him that Vijay Kumar had shown obscene letter to her and thus she is
annoyed. Thereafter, he went to the house of Vijay Kumar but did not find
him there. From the house of Vijay Kumar, he had gone to the house
of Raja Ram. So, he went to the house of Raja Ram and met Vijay Kumar
and asked him as to why he had shown the aforesaid obscene letter
to Jyoti. At that time, Raja Ram and Vijay Kumar were present at
the house of Raja Ram. Both of them misbehaved with him and did
not give any satisfactory reply. He then went to Police Station and
made a complaint against Vijay Kumar and Raja Ram Handia, Police
Officer asked him to sit in the police station and assured him to call
Vijay Kumar and Raja Ram Handia police station. Thereafter, Vijay
Kumar and Raja Ram Handia attended the police station. Both of them
were reprimanded by SI-IO as to why both of them had shown
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 48
aforesaid letter to his daughter. SHO said that he will lodge a report
against them because he had asked the SHO to do so. At that point,
Vijay Kumar and Raja Ram Handia admitted that the aforesaid
anonymous obscene letter was got typed by them and circulated in
order to defame Dera Sacha Sauda and also shown that to Jyoti so that
she should not leave their school and to join school of Dera Sacha
Sauda. Vijay Kumar and Raja Ram Handia pleaded before police that
a mistake had been committed by them and not to lodge any report in
police station and get the matter settled. SHO asked them to
compromise the matter with him. Vijay Kumar and Raja Ram Handia
pleaded guilt and assured not to commit such type of mistake in future.
Thereafter, Raja Ram took a paper and pen from police station and
both of them wrote down on a paper that they have got typed and
circulated the aforesaid anonymous obscene letter in order to defame
Dera Sacha Sauda as well as that the teachers of Vijay Kumar's school
should not leave his school and not to join the school of Dera Sacha
Sauda, Sirsa and the said anonymous obscene letter was also shown to
Jyoti. The compromise was reduced into writing and signed by him,
Vijay Kumar and Raja Ram Handia. The compromise was shown by
him to the SHO, who asked him to retain the same with him. The
said compromise was handed over by him to CBI officer in CBI
office, Sector 30, Chandigarh. He had never beaten Raja Ram Handia
and Vijay Kumar.
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 49
64. DW-4 Nachhatar Pal deposed that he was summoned by
the court by way of issuance of summons. On 25.10.2002, he was
cleaning outside his furniture shop situated at Beghu Road, Sach
Market, Sirsa at about 7.00 a.m. At that time, one Gypsy stopped near
him. Out of that Gypsy, 3-4 police personnel from Haryana Police
boarded down. One of officer came to him. He came to know from his
name plate Badge that he was Sub Inspector Vijay Singh. He asked him as
to where is the house of Krishan Lal. He told him that adjacent to my
shop is house of Krishan Lal. Police knocked the door of house of
Krishan Lal and Krishan Lal opened the door and thereafter, the police
entered into his house. Due to curiosity, he also followed the police
personnel and entered into the house of Krishan Lal. Police had asked
Krishan Lal if he had any revolver or its license. On this, Krishan Lal
replied in affirmative and thus, the police asked him to bring the said
revolver and Krishan Lal fetched the revolver. The police took the
revolver and cartridges in its possession and license was also taken into
possession by police. Krishan Lal had asked police personnel to provide a
receipt for taking the aforesaid material into its possession and on this,
ASI Vijay Singh caught hold of Krishan Lal by his collar and threatened
him that in case he want receipt, the same may be given to him in
police station. Police personnel went away from house of Krishan Lal
alongwith revolver, cartridge and license. Thereafter, he returned back
to his shop. In this regard, he had also conveyed this fact to owner of
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 50
his furniture shop. In the month of February, 2004 around 14/15 of the
month, he had received a notice from CBI, Chandigarh. He therefore
visited CBI office, Chandigarh and met with Mr. Khajuria of CBI. He
narrated to the CBI about sequence of facts which had happened in his
presence as stated by him here-in before. His statement was recorded
by CBI.
65. DW-5 Sita Ram, ASI deposed that he had seen the
summoned record of complaint diary No.464- PU dated 09.05.2007 and
seen the original complaint dated 26.04.2007 lying in this case. The
attested copy of complaint is Ex.PW3 l/DC. He had seen the original
statement of Khata Singh available on file in this case and the attested
copy is Ex.PW31/DD. He had also seen the original report on the above
complaint by Dy.SP (HQ) available on this file and the attested copy
of the same is Ex.DW5/1 (already marked as PW31/Dl). He stated
that he is the record-keeper and the original record which he had seen
is the official record. The official record of the complaint was already
submitted in this court in this case. He had also seen the envelop in
which the complaint was received at their end through courier i.e. DTDC
and it bears consignment No.Tl 7282778.
66. DW-6 Shiv Charan deposed that in April and May, 2007,
he was posted as DSP (HQ) Sirsa. He has seen the original complaint
dated 26.4.2007 in this case. It was marked to him by the then SP
Shri Vikas Arora to him for inquiry, the copy of the same is
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 51
Ex.PW31/DC. This complaint was moved by Shri Khatta Singh son
of Jhanda Singh. In this inquiry of this complaint, statement of above
Khatta Singh complainant was recorded. He has seen the original
statement of above Khatta Singh in the summoned record. The
attested copy of his statement is Ex.PW31/DD was attested by him.
The original statement bears his signature. The signature is reflected in
attested copy at point 'A' on Ex.PW31/DD. Whatever was stated by
above Khatta Singh, was recorded by him. The original statement
bears the signature of Khatta Singh, who had signed in his
presence. The signature of Khatta Singh are at point B on the
attested copy of statement Ex.PW31/DD. After inquiry, he had
prepared inquiry report which is available in this case. The copy
of his inquiry report i s Ex.DW5/1 on which his signatures are
reflected at point C. After this inquiry report, it is reflected as per
order of Superintendent of Police, Sirsa that two gunmen be
provided to Khatta Singh and as per another report of some police
official, compliance of order of SP was made.
67. DW-7 Sarjit Singh has deposed that he used to run his
kiosk business near Jagdamba Paper Mill which is situated on Beghu
Road in Sirsa. On 26.10.2002, as usual at about 8.00/8.30 a.m., he
reached at the place of his kiosk. He has seen so many passers by on
that road. He used to bind up his business at about 8.00/8.30 p.m. He
is doing his business from more than 20 years. At that place, no
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 52
nakabandi was done by the police on 26.10.2002. On that day, The
business around his kiosk was going as usual without anything to
be noticed like movement of police etc. No one was arrested there
from 8.30 a.m. to 8.30 p.m.
68. DW-8 Navdeep Kumar @ Phool Kumar has deposed that
he knew accused present in court through video conferencing. He has
been working as driver of accused from the year 1999 till that day .
They left Sirsa on 23.10.2002 to deliver discourse in Satsang at town Zira
Distt. Ferozepur Punjab, in Indica car owned by Dera Sacha Sauda
Ashram. After attending sastsang at Zira, he alongwith accused returned
to Sirsa at about 12.00 p.m. Satsang was performed in between 4.00 p.m.
To 7.00 p.m.
69. DW-9 Suresh Kumar @ Bittoo has deposed that on
24.10.2002, Kuldeep Singh accused was sitting with him in his office of
Property dealing situated on Hissar Road, Sirsa. He came to him at about
9.00 p.m. At about 10.30/11.00 p.m., two police officers and one man
with beard in plain clothes came to his aforesaid office. After entering
into his office, all of them had asked Kuldeep Singh as to who he was and
thereafter, they, on the pretext that he was being called by chowki
Incharge, Khairpur, Sirsa, took him away from his office. After half an
hour or 45 minutes, he went to chowki Khairpur to ascertain about
Kuldeep Singh but he was shunted away from Khairpur police post.
70. DW-10 Arun Kumar has deposed that he is presently
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 53
working with Ms. Kiran Soni Gupta, Additional Secretary and Financial
Adviser to the Ministry of Youth Affiars and Sports, Government of India,
New Delhi and as such he is conversant with her handwriting and
signatures. Madam Kiran Soni Gupta has been deputed for foreign
training and as such she has authorized him to appear on her behalf in
the court vide authorization letter Ex.DW10/1. He has seen the
signatures of Ms. Kiran Soni Gupta on memo dated 07.06.2001
Ex.DW10/2 and also on memo No.2541 dated 29.05.2002
Ex.DW10/3. He identified the signatures on both these memos which
have been signed by her while working as Collector at Sri
Ganganagar.
71. DW-11 Hukam Chand has deposed that he has brought the
original DDR register for the period 21.12.2007 to 11.02.2008 of
Police Station RPF, Dhandhari Kalan, Ludhiana. It contains DDR
No.10 recorded at 14:30 dated 18.01.2008 and the true copy of the
same is Ex.DW11/1. It is regarding the registration of FIR
No.39/2008 under Sections 145 and 146 Railways Act on the
complaint of Cheema Enterprises etc. against R.S.Brar @ Gandhi,
Jagdish Rai @ Jaggi, Jodha son of R.S.Brar, Khatta Singh, Gurdas son
of Khatta Singh and others on the basis of the memo forwarded by
CGS, Northern Railway, Dhandhari Kalan, Ludhiana.
72. DW-12 Jatinder has deposed that he had been deputed to
produce the summoned record i.e. supplementary report dated 28.09.2002
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 54
submitted by the then District & Sessions Judge, Sirsa to Assistant
Registrar (Cr!.), Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh, pertaining to
Criminal Misc. No.26994-M-2002 'Court on its own motion Vs Haryana
State' and the copy of the same is Ex.DW12/1. The copy of forwarding
letter is Ex.DW12/2.
73. DW-13 Mool Chand Arya has deposed that he was posted
as Collector & DM of District Barmer Rajasthan from September 2000 to
till his retirement i.e. 31.03.2003. The original letter i.e. commendation
certificate vide DO No.11663 duted 19/22.05.2001 has been issued by
him under his seal and signatures. This letter was issued in favour of Shah
Satnamji Green S Welfare Force, Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa, Haryana, for
their relief work done in their district with regard to water supply, fodder
supply and cattle feed in the remote in accessible area of drought affected
people in Shea Tehsil, District Barmer. For doing this work the above
force had not accepted any help/donation from government or any
agency or individual. The force and its volun teers had done the above
work of their own. It was brought to his knowledge by government
officials, who were working under him i.e. SDM, BDO, Tehsildar etc, that
Guru Maharaj Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh had personally come to the
affected area on which he directed SDM, Barmer to make security
arrangements for him. The letter issued under his seal and signature is
Ex.DW13/1 and the list of villages in which the relief work was done
is Ex.DW13/2. He has also seen letter dated 16.06.2001 which
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 55
bears his sig-nature at point-A. The appreciation letter has been
issued to appreciate the work done by organization of Dera Sacha
Sauda, Sirsa, Haryana in drought affected district Barmer,
Rajasthan and the same is Ex.DW13/3.
74. DW-14 Soman Kochucherukkan has deposed that in
2001 he was working as General Manager (personnel) in Gujarat
Narmada Valley Fertilizers Ltd. which is a government of Gujarat
undertaking in District Baruch, Gujarat. Immediately after the earth
quake of 2001 which happened in the month of January, a lot of
officers were suddenly posted for rescue and relief work in
Kutch District, Gujarat which suffered the earth quake. He was
posted as the Additional District Development Officer, Rapar,
Control Room. The district had suffered from the earthquake
which caused extensive damaged and destruction, Rapar taluka
was one of those taluka which had faced total destruction of
including Rapar Town and the entire villages. They were operating
from temporary tents, there was no electricity, no water, no food
arrangements and no places to stay. Everything at that time was
doing manage from the relief control room where he was posted
and he was the Incharge. NGOs from all over India including
abroad started coming with various kind of relief rescue and
rehabilitation work. Dera Sacha Sauda Sirsa from Haryana was one of
the NGOs among hundreds of NGOs which came to Rapar. They were
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 56
asking the NGOs to go to different villages which were affected
depending on its immediate needs and materials available with the NGOs.
Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa stated that they had variety of materials like
tents, medicines and arrangement for running big community
kitchen in the first phase. Accordingly, they alloted about 40
villages bordering Pakistan where no other NGOs had gone at that
time. They provided immediate relief and they also ran a big
community kitchen at Rapar proper which used to work even
during late hours providing unlimited food. All NGOs who come for
relief work always asked for a certificate at the time of departure. This
Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa also requested for such a relief certificate
including the details of materials they had provided to the people.
Accordingly, along with the certificate a list of items provided by the
NGOs was also given. He has seen original certificate dated
14.03.2001 which bears his signature at point-A which is Ex.DW14/1
and was issued by him after verification along with the list of the
relief work done by Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa. This list bears his
signatures at point-A and the same is Ex.DW14/2. During the same
period, Shri AK.Sharma, IAS was also posted there as overall Relief
Incharge at Rapar-Taluka District Kuchh Gujarat. He has worked
with him at different times at different places in different capacity
and he has personal knowledge of his writing and signature and
he can identify his writing and signatures. He has seen one letter
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 57
dated 24.02.2001 which is issued by Relief Control Room under
the signatures and stamp of Shri A.K Sharma, IAS who was posted
as overall Incharge. At that time, he was working directly under
him in the same control room and looking after the same relief
work. He identify his signatures and handwriting at point-A on this
letter which is Ex.DW14/3.
75. DW-15 Mrs. Umesh Nanda has deposed that in the month
of January 2002, she was posted as Commissioner, Hissar Division,
Hissar. She had issued appreciation certificate Ex.DW15/1 and the
same bears her signature. The said appreciation certificate has been
issued by her on the basis of feed back given by the then Deputy
Commissioner, Sirsa and she had no personal knowledge about the
information contained in this appreciation letter.
76. DW-16 Mrs.Raakhi Jagga has deposed that in January,
2008, she was working as Reporter with the newspaper; The Indian
Express. She was covering Ludhiana. The City Edition of The Indian
Express was printed as Ludhiana Newsline. The story reported in
Ludhiana Newsline with the date line of 18th January (circulated on
19th January, 2008) with the heading "5 booked for holding up coal
loading at Railway Station" was reported by her after collecting the
information from the officers and after visiting the police station. She
had correctly reported the contents which are mentioned in this news
report. The photograph published in this news item was provided by
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 58
her photographer, who was also working with the paper. She has
brought the original/ copy of the Ludhiana Newsline dated 19.01.2008
and the true photocopy of this news item is Ex.DW16/1. The news
item is at point-A. She has brought the original copy of the news paper
from archives/library of their news paper.
77. DW-17 Rajeev Kumar has deposed that in October 2002,
he was working at Zira as a Press Reporter (stinger) with the Daily
Newspaper Jagbani, which used to be published from Jalandhar. On
23.10.2002 (Wednesday) satsang of Dera Sacha Sauda was held at Zira
which was addressed by Sant Gurmeet Ram Rahim, the dera head and the
food items which were prepared in that santsang were later on distributed
to the cows and thereafter 45 cows died on account of the taking of that
contaminated food. He had verified these facts by talking to different
persons in Zira and also visited the place of occurrence and then sent the
report to Jagbani dated 25.10.2002 which was published and circulated in
the newspaper on 26.10.2002. The true photocopies of the news items are
Ex.DW17/1 and Ex.DW17/2. The news items at point-A and it contains
correct facts.
78. DW-18 Ajitabh Sharma has deposed that he is in service as
an IAS Officer since 1996. In August 2002, he was posted as District
Collector, Barmer. On 09.08.2002, he had sent request for help to the head
of Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa for making arrangements for water and fodder
in drought affected Barmer District as the said institution rendered such
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 59
help in Shiv Tehsil of Barmer District in the previous year as well. His
letter in this regard is Ex.DW18/1 and it bears his signature.
79. DW-19 Arvind Jaitely has deposed that he is presently
posted as Inspector, CBI, SC-II, Branch New Delhi. He had investigated
case FIR No.RC1(S)/2015/SCU-5/SC-II/CBI/New Delhi. He was initially
the assisting IO in the said and thereafter in 2017, the investigation was
transferred to him and thereafter he filed the charge-sheet of the said case
on 01.02.2018, after completion of the investigation. During the
investigations of that case, he had correctly recorded the statement of
Khatta Singh son of Jhanda Singh, on 08.10.2015 without any addition or
omission therefrom. He had seen the original statement in the summoned
record of the case which is pending in the court of Shri Kapil Rathi,
Special Magistrate, CBI, Panchkula. Ex.DW19/1 (already Mark-
PW31/D11) is the correct copy of the statement of Khatta Singh dated
08.10.2015, which was recorded by him correctly without any addition or
omission thereto, including the marked portion therein.
80. DW-20 Ashok Kumar Sharma has deposed that he had
brought the original copy of Dainik Jagran City (Jagran City, Ludhiana)
local edition dated 19.01.2008 from his office record. The true copy
(photostat) of this news item regarding the coal mafia is Ex.DW20/1
(same report is already marked as Mark-PW31/D8). It has the heading
‘coal mafia ne phir kiya nanga nach’. This report is published on the basis
of the reporting sent by ‘Jagran Team, Ludhiana’ which included the
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 60
correspondent and the press photographer.
81. DW-21 Dr. Govind Gupta deposed that he is presently
posted as Civil Surgeon at Sirsa. He had brought the summoned record in
which he could find the only application of Dera Sacha Sauda for
permission to hold an eye camp from 13.12.2001 to 15.12.2001 and the
letter issued by the office, the then Civil Surgeon, Sirsa dated 04.12.2001
giving the said permission. The other information regarding the said camp
is not available in their records. The original application of Dera Sacha
Sauda and permission letter issued by the office of Civil Surgeon, Sirsa
are Ex.DW21/1 and Ex.DW21/2.
Arguments
82. Sh. H.P.S. Verma, learned Special PP and Sh. S.S. Yadav,
learned DLA-cum-Special PP for the CBI have argued that case of the
prosecution stands duly established beyond reasonable doubt qua all the
four accused persons facing the trial and no doubt can be entertained
about complicity of accused persons in committing murder of deceased
Ram Chander Chhattarpati in pursuance to hatching of criminal
conspiracy. It is argued that there is consistent eye-witness account
regarding the occurrence of causing gunshot injuries to the deceased and
there is no question of mistaken identity of the assailants and the visibility
of the incident as has come out in the evidence of eye-witnesses. It is also
submitted that both the eye-witnesses i.e., PW-3 Anshul and PW-5
Aridaman, being sons of the deceased, are natural witnesses and could not
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 61
be termed as procured or got up witnesses. It is argued that one of the two
assailants, namely, Kuldeep Singh was apprehended at the spot
immediately after the occurrence and in this regard, evidence of eye-
witnesses, namely, Anshul and Aridaman find due corroboration vide
testimonies of two police officials, namely, PW-16 HC Amarpal and PW-
17 HC Dharam Chand. Further contended that so far as other assailant,
namely, Nimral Singh is concerned, he managed to escape from the spot
and was later on apprehended on 26.10.2002 and various recoveries were
effected from him including weapon of offence i.e. .32 bore revolver. It is
also submitted that there is no dispute about the fact that death of Ram
Chander Chhattarpati has occurred on account of gunshot injuries and the
bullet recovered from the body of Ram Chander Chhattarpati has been
established to have been fired from .32 bore revolver, which is licensed
revolver of co-accused Krishan Lal, which was recovered by the police
from the possession of accused Nirmal Singh Further contended that the
oral evidence and medical evidence corroborate each other.
83. It is also submitted that testimonies of eye-witnesses make it
crystal clear that there was enough light at the time of occurrence and
witnesses had enough time to become familiar with the faces of the
assailants and therefore, there is no question about any mistaken or
disputed identity of the assistants, namely, Kuldeep Singh and Nirmal
Singh. In this regard, a reference has also been made to the cross-
examination of PW-3 wherein the witness has categorically replied that
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 62
electric bulb was fixed at point Mark X shown in the site plan Ex.DA/1
and that the switch and electric bulb were on one wall and he had gone to
switch on the electric bulb from the front side and the electric bulb was at
a height of 8-9 ft. from the floor and the bulb was of 100 Watts and that
apart from bulb affixed at point X, the street light was on and from this
much cross-examination of the witness, it is duly established that the
place of occurrence was having proper light and the witnesses could have
conveniently seen the assailants during the occurrence. It is further
submitted that another circumstance about undisputed identification of the
accused has come in the cross-examination of PW-5 Aridaman where he
has replied that he had seen the assailants near to his house on 3-4
occasions, thereby reflecting that this witness had an opportunity to see
the accused while roaming near his house. It is further argued that
statement/complaint Ex.PW5/A of PW-5 Aridaman reflects that it is the
most probable and natural version of the occurrence and the FIR was
lodged promptly, so there is no question of manipulating the FIR or false
implication of any of the accused named in the FIR, especially when one
of the assailant/accused had been apprehended by the police at the spot.
84. It is also argued that it is settled legal proposition that close
witnesses are the best witnesses as they will not let the real culprits go
scot-free and they will not involve any innocent person in the case and
there is no impediment in relying upon statements of PW-3 Anshul and
PW-5 Aridaman who are sons of the deceased and have narrated the
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 63
sequence of events categorically and have stood like a rock during their
cross-examination and their presence was very much natural at the spot
which is their residential house. It is further argued that law of the land is
that quality of the evidence is to be seen and not the quantity of the
evidence and in order to prove the incident of firing at Ram Chander
Chhattarpati on 24.10.2002 and subsequent death of Ram Chander
Chhattarpati on account of gunshot injuries, the prosecution has not only
examined eye-witnesses, PW-3 Anshul and PW-5 Aridaman but it has also
examined PW-16 HC Amar Chand and PW-17 HC Dharam Chand about
the nabbing of accused Kuldeep Singh at the spot immediately after the
incident when he along with co-accused Nirmal Singh was trying to flee
and further prosecution has also examined doctors from Civil Hospital,
Sirsa, PGI, Rohtak and Apollo Hospital, Delhi to bring on record medical
evidence and further it also examined PW-31 Khatta Singh about the
criminal conspiracy and further examined witnesses about the recovery of
weapons etc., apart from examining official witnesses including
Investigating Officer from the CBI and the State police.
85. It is further argued that accused Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh
was the head of Dera Sacha Sauda at the relevant time and an anonymous
letter was circulated and published in the media about the sexual
exploitation of Sadhvis by the Dera head and deceased Ram Chander
Chhattarpati was publishing news items about all such activities of the
Dera in his newspaper “Poora Sach” and the motive for committing the
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 64
crime in question and other crimes by accused Gurmeet Ram Rahim
Singh and his staunch followers began after the circulation of the
anonymous letter and publishing of news items in newspaper “Poora
Sach” about Dera Sacha Sauda and its head was the immediate motive for
murderous attack on Ram Chander Chhattarpati and both the assailants,
namely, Nirmal Singh and Kuldeep Singh were carpenters in the Dera and
co-accused Krishan Lal was Prabandhak of the Dera and causing of death
of Ram Chander Chhattarpati by the assailants with licensed revolver of
Krishan Lal and further recovery of a walkie-talkie set licensed to the
Dera cogently make out the motive to eliminate Ram Chander
Chhattarpati in pursuance to the conspiracy hatched by accused Gurmeet
Ram Rahim Singh, Krishan Lal, Nirmal Singh and Kuldeep Singh. It is
also argued that apart from cogent circumstantial evidence indicating
involvement of all the four accused in criminal conspiracy to eliminate
Ram Chander Chhattarpati, there is an eye-witness account regarding
involvement of accused Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh in the criminal
conspiracy with his co-accused, Krishan Lal, Nirmal Singh and Kuldeep
Singh. It is argued that PW-31 Khatta Singh has categorically deposed
that in his presence accused Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh had directed
Krishan Lal, Kuldeep Singh and Nirmal Singh to eliminate Ram Chander
Chhattarpati before he publishes any other news item in his newspaper
about him and about activities of Dera again and that his voice be silenced
for ever and that in the presence of PW-31, accused Krishan Lal had
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 65
handed over his licensed revolver to Nirmal Singh and Kuldeep Singh
along with walkie-talkie and recovery of licensed revolver and walkie-
talkie set from the possession of Nirmal Singh and apprehending of
accused Kuldeep Singh at the spot immediately after the firing at Ram
Chander Chhattarpati clearly make out culpability of all the four accused
beyond reasonable doubt.
86. It is further argued that it is settled legal proposition that
burden on the prosecution is to establish its case beyond all reasonable
doubts and not all doubts. Doubts must be actual and substantial doubts as
to the guilt of the accused persons arising from evidence or from the lack
of it, as opposed to mere vague apprehensions. It is argued that none of
the witnesses have been found to be inimical to any of the accused
persons and there is no reason or even otherwise suggested to the
witnesses to impute any motive or special reason to falsely implicate the
accused persons and since version of the prosecution witnesses has been
consistent, therefore, the testimony of such witnesses is truthful and
trustworthy. It is also argued that apart from cogent evidence regarding
involvement of criminal conspiracy, there is evidence that injured Ram
Chander Chhattarpati made statement to SI Ram Chander in the presence
of PW-3 Anshul and such statement will come under the category of dying
declaration as per provision of Section 32 of Indian Evidence Act and that
this is further evidence of criminal conspiracy regarding involvement of
accused Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh and Krishan Lal. It is also pointed
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 66
out that SI Ram Chander was also subjected to polygraph test regarding
the presence of Anshul at the time of recording of statement of Ram
Chander Chhattarpati u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and the fact regarding disclosure by
Ram Chander Chhattarpati about involvement of Gurmeet Ram Rahim
Singh in the conspiracy to eliminate him and said report has been brought
on record as Ex.PW44/A and as per the report, SI Ram Chander was
found to be deceptive on both these issues. It is submitted that polygraph
test of SI Ram Chander is admissible in evidence and can be relied upon
as he is not an accused in this case and as per settled law, the polygraph
test report of only an accused is not admissible in evidence if he has not
given his consent for the same. It is also pointed that PW-3 Anshul has
also deposed the circumstances regarding recording of statement of his
injured father by SI Ram Chander and he had no occasion to verify the
recorded statement as he had no control over the investigation carried out
by the local police and he came to know about this fact only when local
police filed charge-sheet and after that he filed writ petition before the
Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana to transfer the investigation to
the CBI to probe involvement of Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh in criminal
conspiracy to eliminate his father. It is further argued that testimonies of
PW-4 R.K. Sethi and PW-37 Madan Bansal further make out that anyone
publishing any news item regarding activities of Dera Sacha Sauda and its
head was bound to earn the ire of Dera followers at the bidding of Dera
authority and their testimonies further reflect that pressure of Dera and its
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 67
followers did not allow the local police to conduct proper investigation in
any crime involving Dera people. Further submitted that testimonies of
PW-1 Balwant Singh and PW-2 R.K. Handiya further make out motive of
the accused to get eliminated the deceased and the moving force behind
the attack. It is further submitted that apart from PW-3 Anshul and PW-5
Aridaman, there are other witnesses i.e. PW-19 Vishwajeet, PW-21 Lekh
Raj etc. who have deposed about publishing of news items in “Poora
Sach” newspaper and threats received by the deceased, which further
make out motive on the part of accused persons to eliminate Ram
Chander Chhattarpati. It is argued that PW-31 Khatta Singh, who was
driver on the vehicle of Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh and was very close to
him, has given eye-witness account of the conspiracy hatched by the
accused persons to eliminate Ram Chander Chhattarpati. It is submitted
that testimony of PW-31 Khatta Singh, if seen in the entirety of the facts
and circumstances, inspires confidence and trustworthy enough to lend
corroboration to the circumstantial evidence making out guilt of accused
Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh for the offence of criminal conspiracy
and the statement of Khatta Singh under the circumstances is truthful
statement. It is submitted that this witness experienced exceptional
circumstance of life when he had to spend part of his life under threat and
fear of accused and by concealing him inspite of the fact that he was
having two security personnel which were not sufficient at all to protect
his life when accused Gurmeet Ram Rahim was so powerful man. It is
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 68
also submitted that even though this witness had initially resiled while
deposing first time in the court, but he had admitted all the material
aspects of his statement recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C. in his
cross-examination by learned PP and also admitted that his statement was
recorded by a Magistrate as per his disclosure, which itself make out that
this witness has given true account of the events. Further submitted that
this witness has been recalled on the directions of Hon'ble High Court and
Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the order of Hon'ble High Court, whereby
this witness was ordered to be recalled and the chain of events testified
that he remained under threat, pressure and fear of the accused as he knew
that accused Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh was a powerful person and that
such powerful accused could eliminate him, his family and threat to life of
Khatta Singh and his family further stands established by the testimony of
PW-39 B.L. Soni, who while posted as DIG, CBI, Chandigarh, had been
approached by PW-31 Khatta Singh along with an application
Ex.PW31/C and written letter Ex.PW31/C1 along with the envelope
whereby threats were extended to him and his family and PW-39 clearly
stated that Khatta Singh was terrified and fearing threat to his son and
family and all such circumstances make out that this witness has
experienced threat to his life and could not speak truth when he entered in
the witness box earlier and later on he gathered courage when accused
Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh was convicted and put behind bars in another
case and this witness has come out and has spoken about events truthfully
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 69
and therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of this
witness. It is also argued that no biasness on the part of Investigating
Officers of the CBI has come on record and therefore, guilt of all the
accused persons for the charged offences is duly proved on the record.
87. It is also argued that minor contradictions, omissions or
improvements on trivial matters, without affecting the case of
prosecution, cannot be made a ground to reject the evidence in its entirety.
It is also argued that minor inconsistencies or discrepancies in the
statements of witnesses may be chance error of memory due to lapse of
time or due to mental ability of witness concerned and the same are of no
significance. It is further submitted that alleged discrepancy about the
arrest of accused Nirmal Singh on the basis of some newspaper report is
without any basis as news item is based on borrowed information and
such news item is not proof of facts reported therein unless proved in the
Court of law as per law and unless the person who perceived that fact
personally steps into the witness box to state about it. It is also argued that
site-plan of incident not properly prepared by the I.O. does not furnish any
ground to disbelieve the otherwise credible testimony of witnesses. In
order to buttress their arguments, reliance has been placed upon case law
State of Rajasthan Versus Daud Khan 2016 (1) RCR (Criminal) 123;
V.K. Mishra and another Vs. State of Uttrakhand 2015 Criminal Law
Journal 4021; Madhu @ Madhuranatha and another Vs. State of
Karnataka 2014 (1) RCR Criminal 203; Yogesh Singh Vs. Mahabir
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 70
Singh & Others 2016 (4) Recent Criminal Reports 753; Prithvi
(minor) Versus Mam Raj and Others 2005 Supreme Court Cases
(Criminal) 198; Bimal Devi Versus Rajesh Singh 2016 (1) Recent
Criminal Reports 844; Criminal Appeal No. 1100 of 2009 titled as
Palani Versus State of Tamilnadu; Jafel Biswas Vs. State of West Bengal
2018 Supreme Court Cases 2011; Kartik Malhar Vs. State of Bihar
Recent Criminal Reports 1996 (1) 308; Gulshan Vs. The State of
Haryana 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 157; Bimla Devi Vs. Rajesh Singh and
another 2016 (1) RCR (Criminal) 844; Dalbir Kaur and another Vs. State
of Bihar AIR 1977 (SC) 472; Lala Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan 2007
(4) Recent Criminal Reports 20; Rameshwar Vs. The State of
Rajasthan AIR 1952 Supreme Court 54; Dashrath Vs. State of U.P.
2018 (4) Criminal Court Cases 504 (Allahabad); Dilawar Singh and
Others Vs. State of Haryana 2014 (4) Recent Criminal Reports 351;
Kuria and another Vs. State of Rajasthan 2013 (2) Recent Criminal
Reports 108; Takdir Sumasuddin Sheikh Vs. State of Gujarat and another
2011 (4) Recent Criminal Reports 840; Yogesh Singh Vs. Mahabir
Singh and another 2016 (4) RCR (Criminal) 753; Madhu @ Madhura
Natha and another Vs. State of Karnataka 2014 (1) RCR (Criminal)
203; Selvi Vs. State of Karnataka 2010 (2) RCR (Criminal) 896; State
of Maharashtra Vs. Suresh 2000 (1) Judicial Reports (Criminal) 270;
Laxmi Raj Shetty and another Vs. State of T.N. AIR 1988 (SC) 1274;
Samant K. Balakrishna Vs. George Fernandez 1969 (3) SCR 603;
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 71
Nachhatar Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1985(1) PLR 1; Jafel Biswas Vs.
State of West Bengal 2018 SCC OnLine SC 2011; Shamsher Singh
Alias Shera Vs. State of Haryana 2002 (7) Supreme Court Cases 536;
Nanhau Ram and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 1988 (Supp.)
Supreme Court Cases 152 and Criminal Appeal No. 1192 of 2018
titled as Pradeep Bisoi @ Ranjit Bisoi Vs. State of Odisha, arising out of
SLP (Criminal) No. 6225 of 2017, decided on 10.10.2018.
88. On the other hand, Sh. N.P.S. Waraich and Sh. Sarabjit
Singh Waraich, Advocates, learned counsel representing accused Kuldeep
Singh and Nirmal Singh have vehemently argued that these persons have
no connection with the death of Ram Chander Chhattarpati in any manner
and have been falsely implicated in this case. It is argued that in the
adjudication of criminal trial, three things, i.e. spontaneity of the version,
consistency of the version and independent corroboration of the version,
are of utmost importance for the just decision of the case, however none
of the three aspects stand duly proved on record, which in turn make out
falsity of the prosecution version apparent on record.
89. It is argued that there is delay in lodging the FIR and further
delay in reaching the FIR to Illaqa Magistrate. It is pointed out that
alleged occurrence occurred at about 07.45/08.00 p.m., but FIR has been
lodged at 10.25 p.m. despite the fact that distance between house of the
deceased i.e. place of occurrence and police post Khaipur is about 200
yards and distance between police post Khaipur and Hanuman Mandir is
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 72
about 500 yards and distance between place of occurrence and Police
Station City, Sirsa is about 3 Kms. It is further pointed out that there is
further delay in sending the FIR to learned Illaqa Magistrate by more than
14 hours, which in turn make out that FIR was not recorded at the time
and place at which the same is stated to have been recorded. It is also
pointed out that distance between Police Station City, Sirsa and the court
of learned Magistrate is not more than 3 Kms. and the delay in sending
the FIR has remained unexplained. It is argued that where the lodging of
the report is delayed, it not only gets bereft of spontaneity, danger also
creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, thought-out stories and
twist to the actual facts. The interested parties can then be sounded and
some of them shown as false witnesses and likewise some innocent
persons can be roped in and named as culprits, as a result of much sought
consultation and discussion and to avoid all such dangers, the courts have
always insisted upon the prompt lodging of the report to the police. It is
also argued that in murder cases, because of the enormity of the stakes
involved, certain additional safeguards are provided and to ensure that the
version of the occurrence is disclosed as soon as possible and in this
regard, reference has been made to Rule 24.5 of the Punjab Police Rules
which provides that copy of the First Information Report should be sent
immediately to the Magistrate in his court during court hours and at his
residence thereafter. Further pointed out that another safeguard to ensure
prompt disclosure of the facts of occurrence is to enter the substance of
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 73
the report in a book prescribed by State Govt., apart from the first
information register in which the full report is reproduced and reference in
this regard has been made to Rule 24.1 of the Punjab Police Rules and
accordingly argued that if the safeguards provided u/s 154 to 157 of
Cr.P.C. and Rules 24.1 and 24.5 of Punjab Police Rules are put to the facts
of the present case, then it becomes apparent that said provisions have
been blatantly flouted. It is also pointed out that rukka on the statement of
Aridaman/complainant was scribed at about 10.00 p.m. on 24.10.2002 at
Hanuman Chowk, Sirsa, which is at a distance of about 1 Km. from the
alleged place of occurrence, however occurrence in the present case has
allegedly taken place between 07.45 to 08.00 p.m. on that day and in view
of the facts on record, there is delay of two and half hours in the lodging
of the FIR and further there is delay of about 15 hours in reaching the FIR
to the Ilaqa Magistrate. It is also pointed out that there are material
inconsistencies in the version emerging in cross-examination of PW-5
Aridaman and PW-30 DSP Vijay Singh with regard to the timings and
thus, very inception of the FIR is open to serious doubts. It is further
argued that it is settled legal proposition laid down by Hon'ble Supreme
Court to the effect that when there is delay in lodging the FIR, evidence is
to be scrutinized with more care and caution and if no explanation for the
delay is forthcoming, then the only inference is that the FIR was not
recorded at the time and place it purports to have been recorded. It is also
pointed that PW-5 Aridaman, in his cross-examination, has stated that he
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 74
remained at home for two and two and half hours after the incident and
also states that relatives had reached at his house on hearing the news and
in such circumstances, introduction of coloured version cannot be ruled
out and it is apparently made out that FIR is concocted piece of evidence
as is made out by the circumstances coming on record in the depositions
of the witnesses. It is also pointed out that site plan does not bear FIR
number or the names of the accused, which further make out that
recording of FIR is ante-timed.
90. Next, it is argued that very identity of the accused Kuldeep
Singh and Nirmal Singh is not at all established as no test identification
parade was ever conducted and identification of the accused for the first
time in the court and that too after a substantial period is inherently weak
in character. It is argued that as per settled law since dock identification
very often depends on the visual impression of the witness, so it has been
considered as suspect without there being any supporting evidence,
especially when there has been no previous identification of the accused
by the concerned witnesses. It is also argued that if the accused was not
known to the eye-witness earlier and no identification parade was held,
then only identification in the court cannot be said to have established
case of prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. It is pointed out that a bare
reading of statement of PW-5 Aridaman, as per the complaint Ex.PW5/A,
reveals that the accused were not known to the witness prior to
24.10.2002 as he has merely stated that two young men armed with
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 75
pistols were there and he has not given any physical description of young
men, which leads to the inference that PW-5 Aridaman never knew the
identity of the assailants and thus, identification of the accused for the
first time in court after several years is valueless piece of evidence,
especially when the witness has seen the accused just by a passing
movement. It is also argued that PW-5 Aridaman also made deliberate
improvement in his version at the time of deposition in the court when he
states that Kuldeep was caught at the spot, but no such version is there in
the complaint/statement Ex.PW5/A of Aridaman. It is also pointed out
that in the cross-examination of PW-5 Aridaman, he states that he had not
gone to the police station after one of the assailants had been apprehended
by the police and had been taken to the police post and that he had not
gone to the police post on the day of occurrence and this averment of this
witness assumes importance when seen in the light of his statement
Ex.PW5/A wherein he has simply stated that one of the assailants was
apprehended and one of them ran away from the spot, without disclosing
the identity of the person who was caught at the spot and the person who
has run away and as to whether the person who fired at his father was
apprehended at the spot or whether the person who exhorted to open fire
at his father was apprehended at the spot. It is also argued that version
given in the statement Ex.PW5/A also appears to be most unnatural and
improbable because instinct of self preservation is all pervasive in all
living beings and no assailants, who have come prepared to attack their
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 76
target in pitch dark in the month of October, would disclose their identity
by calling out each others names, especially when assailants had allegedly
come prepared to escape on a scooter after the occurrence and had chosen
backside of the house as the place of occurrence, as per the version of the
prosecution. It is argued that in the light of circumstances on record, the
first and foremost intention of the assailants was to conceal their identity
and to escape from the spot unnoticed on the scooter and so it is unnatural
and improbable version of the prosecution that the assailants had loudly
called each others names so as to disclose their identity to the persons
present around. It is also argued that a person, who is conscious to conceal
his identity, will be the last person to expose his identity himself. It is also
argued that as per version of PW-3 Anshul, the injured was taken to Civil
Hospital, Sirsa and S.P., Sirsa and D.C., Sirsa reached Civil Hospital and
that his father talked to D.C., Sirsa but it is also made out that there was
no version with Ram Chander Chhattarpati that he was shoot at by
Kuldeep Singh and Nirmal Singh of Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa in the
presence of his family members or that one of the assailants had been
caught by the police at the spot itself. It is further pointed out that PW-43
Armaandeep Singh, I.O. has also admitted in his cross-examination that in
the statement of Dr. J.P. Choudhary recorded by R.C. Dogra on
22.11.2006, it is mentioned that when Ram Chander Chhattarpati was
brought to the hospital at about 08.15 p.m., he was conscious and was
able to speak and he replied that he was shoot at by someone but he did
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 77
not disclose the name of any person who attempted to kill him and this
much circumstance further suggests that by that time Ram Chander
Chhattarpati had no version that he was shot at by Kuldeep Singh and
Nirmal Singh or that Kuldeep Singh was apprehended at the spot. It is
also argued that roznamcha of the police post Khaipur has not been
brought on record and CBI has also not taken the same into possession
and in this regard, it is also pointed that Investigating Officer PW-43
Armaandeep Singh also states that he did not enter the police post and did
not record the statement of any Constable posted in the said police post
and did not check the roznamcha dated 24.10.2002 of the said police post
and thus there is no proper corroboration to the prosecution version. It is
also argued that even if prosecution version is assumed to be correct,
(even though denied vehemently) some scuffle might have taken place at
the time of apprehension of the assailants at the place of occurrence, but
no medico-legal report of the accused has come on record. It is also
pointed out that PW-30 DSP Vijay Singh states that accused Kuldeep
Singh was medico-legally examined, but again medico-legal report of this
accused is not there. It is also submitted that exhortation is weak type of
evidence and without proper identification of the accused, no culpability
can be attributed to the accused who allegedly exhorted the other to open
gunshots at the deceased. It is further argued that version of police
officials i.e. PW-16 HC Amarpal and PW17 HC Dharam Chand regarding
alleged apprehending of one of the assailant is again improbable and
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 78
unnatural. In this regard, it is pointed out that names of these police
officials do not find mentioned in the statement Ex.PW5/A of complainant
Aridaman or in the FIR Ex.PW30/4. Further pointed out that their names
are also not mentioned in the rough site plan Ex.PW30/7 and scaled site
plan Ex.PW18/A and further the place of alleged apprehending of the
assailant is not mentioned in the site-plan. Further pointed out that version
qua these police officials is also not there in the inquest report
Ex.PW12/E, as inquest report is document of vital importance as per Rule
25.35 of the Punjab Police Rules. It is submitted that if the facts about
occurrence are mentioned in the inquest report, it will go to show that by
that time the version of the occurrence has been given and if the same are
not mentioned then it may be inferred that the Investigating Officer was
not sure about the facts till that time. It is also submitted that there is no
corroboration from the concerned record of the police station regarding
departure and arrival of these police officials on 24.10.2002. It is pointed
out that as per Rule 22.48 of the Punjab Police Rules, daily diary shall be
maintained in accordance with the provisions of the Police Act and all
entries in the station diary are to be made by the Officer Incharge of the
Police Station or by the Station Clerk and the opening entry of the each
day shall give particulars of each person in custody etc. and further Rule
22.49 makes a provision regarding entry of arrival and departure on duty
at or from a police station of all enrolled police officers, however no
record pertaining to movements of the police officials has been brought
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 79
on record and a vital piece of evidence, having great bearing on the
version put forward by the prosecution, has been withheld and it further
creates dent in the prosecution story. It is also argued that even though
PW-17 HC Dharam Chand has stated in his cross-examination that
Kuldeep Singh was brought to the police post and they told about this to
the Munshi of the police post, but Munshi of police post Khaipur has not
been examined. It is also submitted that most of the concerned police
officials have stated in cross-examination that they did not make any entry
in the DDR, meaning thereby that important provisions have been flouted
blatantly. It is also argued that prosecution has withheld important
documents and material witnesses and therefore adverse inference is
liable to be drawn against the prosecution u/s 114 (g) of the Indian
Evidence Act. It is also pointed that PW-16 HC Amarpal also stated in his
cross-examination that he did not prepare any arrest memo at the time of
apprehending the assailant and even otherwise, no personal search memo
or memo of grounds of arrest etc. was prepared on 24.10.2002 and
therefore all such circumstances apparently make out that PW-16 HC
Amarpal and PW-17 HC Dharam Chand were not present at the time of
alleged apprehending of any accused. It is also submitted that there are
inconsistencies in the versions of PW-16 and PW-17, which further make
out that no such incident, as stated by these witnesses, had taken place.
91. Further argued that so far as apprehending of accused Nirmal
Singh on 26.10.2002 is concerned, again there are material discrepancies
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 80
in the statements of witnesses namely, PW-16 Amarpal PW-17 Dharam
Chand, PW-30 DSP Vijay Singh and PW-21 Lekh Raj etc. and
contradictory versions of material witnesses sufficiently create doubt
regarding veracity of the prosecution version regarding the arrest of
Kuldeep Singh and Nirmal Singh. Further pointed out that whole
prosecution version given by PW-3, PW-5, PW-16, PW-17, PW-21, PW-
30 further gets falsified by a document i.e. newspaper Ex.DA/1 which is
admitted document of the prosecution, because version given in the news
item is quite inconsistent with the prosecution case. It is further argued
that evidence of PW-19 Vishwajeet further falsify the material prosecution
witnesses, because as per news report of this witness, accused Nirmal
Singh had been apprehended on 25.10.2002 and alleged recoveries
effected from him, however as per prosecution version, accused Nirmal
Singh was arrested on 26.10.2002 at Nakabandi near Jagdamba Paper Mill
and alleged recoveries were effected from him. It is also pointed out that
another news item Ex.DA/2 further creates dent in the veracity of the
prosecution case, wherein it is reported that editor of “Poora Sach” was
attacked in the late evening of 24.10.2002 by the two followers of the
Dera when he was inspecting the development work in the street and that
the assailants who were apprehended at the spot confessed their guilt
before the police. It is also argued that when there is delay in dispatching
the FIR to the Magistrate, it provides a legitimate basis for suspecting that
FIR was recorded much later than stated date, affording sufficient time to
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 81
prosecution to introduce improvements and set up a distorted version.
92. It is also argued that rough site plan has not been signed by
complainant Aridaman, on whose instructions the same is stated to have
been prepared and material aspects/points of the alleged occurrence have
not been reflected in the site plan and if this aspect is seen in the light of
inconsistencies in the statements of prosecution witnesses, then the
presence of alleged eye-witnesses at the place of occurrence becomes
doubtful. It is further argued that material witnesses have been withheld
by the prosecution, which again casts a serious reflection on the fairness
of the trial and adverse inference arises against the prosecution for non
production of material witnesses and documents of vital nature. In this
regard, it is pointed out that various material witnesses/documents i.e.
eye-witness Shreysi, persons present near the house of Ram Chander
Chhattarpati, relations of Aridaman who reached their house after the
incident, MHC/Munshi of police post Khairpur to whom Kuldeep Singh
was firstly handed over, Dr. J.P. Chaudhary who talked to injured Ram
Chander Chhattarpati in Civil Hospital, Sirsa, Narinder Parikh, Editor of
“Poora Sach”, Chief Minister, Haryana who met injured Ram Chander
Chhattarpati at PGI, Rohtak, Sohana Ram Sangha, father of Ram Chander
Chhattarpati who moved application dated 08.11.2002, SI- Ram Chander
who recorded statement of Ram Chander Chhattarpati, medical doctor
who conducted MLR of Ram Chander Chhattarpati, SI-Bodh Singh who
remained presented with PW-30 Vijay Singh throughout the investigation,
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 82
DC, Sirsa and SP, Sirsa who reached at Civil Hospital, Sirsa when injured
Ram Chander Chhattarpati was taken to hospital, Resham Singh in whose
case injured Ram Chander Chhattarpati was taken to the hospital, daily
diary register of police post, Khaipur etc. have been withheld by the
prosecution. It is also argued that as per prosecution version, accused
Kuldeep Singh had fired gunshots at the deceased and said accused was
apprehended at the spot, however there is no positive report of presence of
gunshot residue (GSR) on the hands of accused Kuldeep Singh and again
the report regarding the same has been withheld by the prosecution and
again adverse inference is required to be drawn against prosecution on
this score.
93. It is also submitted that there is huge delay in recording the
statements of witness Anshul Chhattarpati as said witness, while
appearing as PW-3, has stated that his statement was not recorded by
Haryana police at any point of time and his statement was recorded by the
CBI for the first time in the year 2003 and thus there is long delay in
recording the statement of this witness, which is sufficient to disbelieve
him. Further submitted that likewise Khatta Singh has made statement
before the CBI for the first time on 26.12.2006 and then on 21.06.2007
and such unjustified and unexplained long delay on the part of
investigating agency in recording statements of material witnesses will
render evidence of such witnesses unreliable. It is also argued that when
some of the accused are not named in the FIR by the complainant and
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 83
such accused named later on in the statement/supplementary statement
recorded after much delay, then such statement could not be relied upon.
94. It is also argued that there is conflict between medical and
ocular evidence. It is argued that complainant Aridaman has not stated as
to how many shots were fired by the assailants or as to how many shots
hit his father or as to how many injuries were caused to his father and all
this leads to inevitable conclusion that this witness has not seen the
occurrence. Further contended that the version given by PW-5 Aridaman
is totally contrary to medical evidence. In this regard, it is pointed out that
PW-5, in his cross-examination, has stated that his father was shot from
the front side, however PW-8 Dr. R.K. Karwasra has stated that as per
MLR, the patient had four injuries on his person, i.e. one injury on the
abdomen, one on the right thigh and two on the back of the chest. It is
also pointed out that pictorial diagram showing seat of injuries i.e.
Ex.PW6/B also makes out that the injured had two injuries at the back of
the chest and this again reflects that PW-5 Aridaman perhaps has not seen
the incident. It is further argued that as per settled law, where evidence of
the prosecution witnesses is totally inconsistent with the medical
evidence, then this is most fundamental defect in the prosecution case and
unless reasonably explained, it is sufficient to discredit the entire case. It
is also argued that when alleged eye-witness could not state the seat of the
injuries inflicted and when evidence of eye-witness is in contradiction to
the medical evidence, then presence of such eye-witness at the time of
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 84
occurrence becomes highly doubtful, especially when the witness is
closely related to the deceased.
95. Next, it is argued that there are inconsistencies galore in the
statements of material witnesses, which go to the root of the case and
creates serious doubt about the entire prosecution version. In this regard,
it is pointed that PW-5 Ardaman, in his cross-examination, states that he
remained at home for two and half hours after the incident, which took
place at about 07.45/08.00 p.m., but PW-30 DSP Vijay Singh has stated
that on 24.10.2002 at about 09.15 p.m., he was present near Hanuman
Mandir and Aridaman met him there who informed him that his father had
been shot at. Further pointed out that there are material inconsistencies in
the statements of PW-5 and PW-30 regarding the timings of the events
after the occurrence of gunshot injuries to Ram Chander Chhattarpati on
24.10.2002, which again casts shadow of doubt over the prosecution case.
It is also pointed out that as per evidence of PW-30 Vijay Singh, he
moved application Ex.PW6/E on 24.10.2002 to the doctor to get his
opinion regarding fitness of the injured, but the application does not
contain the name of complainant and names of accused in the heading of
the application, even though PW-30 Vijay Singh had already recorded the
statement Ex.PW5/A of PW-5 Aridaman. Further pointed out that as per
version given by PW-30 Vijay Singh, he had received parcels of clothes
and bullet from Dr. Dale Singh at about 10.20/10.25 p.m. on 24.10.2002
vide memo Ex.PW5/C, but heading of the memo Ex.PW5/C, meant to
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 85
reflect the names of the accused, has been left blank, meaning thereby that
names of accused were not known to the Investigating Officer by that
time. Further pointed out that PW-30 Vijay Singh prepared recovery
memo Ex.PW5/B of blood stained earth on 24.10.2002, but again place
for mentioning the names of the accused is left blank, again making out
that names of accused were not known to the police by that time. Further
pointed out that in the rough site plan Ex.PW30/7, there is no mention of
FIR number and names of the accused, meaning thereby that at the time of
preparation of this document, the version given by PW-5 Aridaman in his
statement Ex.PW5/A was not there. It is also pointed that there is no
mention in the short notes of the site plan Ex.PW30/7, reflecting the
places from where accused Kuldeep Singh allegedly shot gun fires and
from where accused Nirmal Singh raised 'lalkara' and the names of the
accused are not mentioned as Kuldeep Singh or Nirmal Singh and all
these circumstances make out that version of Aridaman as recorded in
Ex.PW5/A is fabricated after due deliberations. It is also argued that
complainant Aridaman was a boy of less than 15 years and it is not
probable that he would go and meet police officials alone at the stated
place to inform the police about the incident, more so when his relatives
had reached their house. It is also argued that in the light of material
inconsistencies and uncorroborated testimonies of interested witnesses, a
yawning gap between ‘may be’ true and ‘must be’ true is there and
prosecution has failed to establish its case against any of the accused
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 86
persons. It is also argued that as per the prosecution version itself, the
person who is eye witness has not identified the person allegedly
apprehended by going to the police post and further the persons/police
officials who allegedly apprehended the assailants had not witnessed the
occurrence and again there is a gap in the prosecution story, which the
prosecution has failed to fill. It is also pointed out that names of police
officials Amarpal and Dharam Chand are also not mentioned in the
testimony of PW-3 Anshul. It is also argued that absence of entries in the
DDR register has made the statements of these witnesses tainted and
unworthy because entry in the DDR register would have lent some
credence and corroboration to the version given by these witnesses. It is
argued that test to appreciate the testimony of eye-witnesses is to see as to
whether there are contradictions and discrepancies in the statements of
such witnesses; as to whether witnesses have tried to improve upon their
earlier statements; and as to whether evidence of the witnesses is
corroborated by medical evidence and evidence of witnesses in this case
has failed all these tests and the prosecution has miserably failed to make
out culpability of accused persons. It is also pointed out that PW-5
Aridaman in his cross-examination states that rough site plan of place of
occurrence was not prepared at his instance, however PW-30 Vijay Singh
states that he prepared the site plan of place of occurrence with correct
marginal notes and that he prepared the rough site plan on the instructions
of Aridaman and this material omission on the part of PW-5 Aridaman
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 87
that he did not get prepared the rough site plan amounts to contradiction
and it is sufficient to impeach his credibility as per section 155 (3) of
Indian Evidence Act.
96. It is next contended that recoveries of revolver and bullets are
again quite doubtful, which further shake the veracity of the prosecution
case. In this regard, it is pointed out that PW-19 Vishwajeet states that
recovery of revolver was effected on 25.10.2002, but as per the
prosecution case it was effected on 26.10.2002. It is further pointed out
that as per statement of PW-16 HC Amarpal, only 10 live cartridges were
recovered along with the revolver from accused Nirmal Singh, however as
per prosecution case, 5 empty cartridges and 7 live .32 bore revolver
cartridges were allegedly recovered and in such circumstances no sanctity
would be given to the FSL report qua examination of 5 empty cartridges,
even though it is not proved that bullets recovered from the body of
deceased are having any link with empty cartridges examined. It is further
pointed out that there is no mention of turning the recovered revolver into
sealed parcel or turning the recovered empties and live cartridges into
sealed parcel in the statements of PW-16 Amarpal and PW-17 Dharam
Chand. Further pointed out that there are material discrepancies qua the
seals affixed on the sealed parcels as is made out in the statements of
various prosecution witnesses, which further make out that link evidence
is missing and no reliance can be placed upon FSL reports. In this regard,
it is pointed out that PW-22 ASI Sombir has stated that on 26.10.2002,
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 88
SI-Vijay Singh has also deposited with him in the Malkhana one sealed
parcel containing .32 bore revolver sealed with the seal impression “VS”,
one parcel containing 5 empty cartridges and 7 live cartridges of .32 bore
sealed with seal “VS”, however PW-30 DSP Vijay Singh has stated that
revolver empties and live cartridges were taken into possession vide
recovery memo Ex.PW21/2 and a parcel containing the recovered articles
was sealed by him with the seal of “BS”. Further pointed out that as per
memo Ex.PW21/2, the revolver was sealed in polythene but PW-28 K.P.S.
Kushwaha, Ballistics Expert did not state that he received the revolver in
polythene packing, rather he stated that he received the revolver in cloth
packing. Further pointed out that so far as first bullet recovered from
clothes of injured Ram Chander Chattaparti is concerned, PW-30 Vijay
Singh states that it was pallets and it was in bottle, but PW-5 Aridaman
states that it was in plastic container. Further pointed out that it is not the
case of PW-28/Ballistics Expert that he received the bullets for
examination in plastic container. It is further pointed out that as per
statement of PW-10 Dr. Chitranjan Behera, the bullet recovered from the
body of Ram Chander Chhattarpati was sealed with the seal of department
of forensic medicine, AIIMS, but as per FSL report Ex.PW28/1, said
parcel is reflected to be sealed with the seal of doctor and not that of
department of forensic medicines, AIIMS. It is further pointed out that
report of Assistant Director, Serology, vide Ex.PW27/1, reveals that when
the bullet was received in the lab of Assistant Director, Serology, it was
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 89
having one seal of doctor and there was no seal of mortuary on parcel No.
3 which was sent to Assistant Director, Serology by the Assistant Director,
Ballistics in original form. Accordingly, it is argued that prosecution has
failed to prove that incriminating articles sealed with specimen seals had
reached at FSL with the same seal(s) and description and therefore
possibility of tampering with the same cannot be ruled out and link
evidence has remained missing. It is also submitted that there has been a
delay in sending the recovered articles to the concerned lab and delay in
sending parcels to the lab raises suspicion, thereby making it unsafe that
the case of the prosecution has been established beyond reasonable doubt.
It is also pointed that there is no entry in the Malkhana regarding other
recovered articles like toy, pistol, scooter, car etc. It is also submitted that
all the relevant witnesses have not deposed in unison with regard to seals
of parcels and number of parcels and thus all such recoveries and
consequential reports of FSL are open to very serious doubt.
97. Next, it is contended that there is no credible evidence of
alleged criminal conspiracy amongst the accused and only statements of
accused are there, which are inadmissible in evidence and moreover the
same also contradict the case presented by the CBI. Further contended
that there is no evidence that Nirmal Singh and Kuldeep Singh had any
connection with Krishan Lal or with Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh. Further
submitted that there is no evidence that revolver was handed over by
Krishan Lal in the presence of Khatta Singh. It is also pointed out that
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 90
CBI has also toed the line of investigation done by Haryana police, but in
the statements of accused Nirmal Singh and Kuldeep Singh, they have not
stated regarding any conspiracy with Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim. It is also
argued that DW-4 Suresh Kumar @ Bittu has duly testified that Kuldeep
Singh was picked up by the police on 24.10.2002 from his place and thus,
false implication of accused persons is writ large on record.
98. Next, it is argued that motive is double edged weapon and
motive which is used for crime can be used for false implication as well.
It is argued that if motive is alleged, then it has to be proved like any other
incriminating circumstance and if proved, then the court has to see the
adequacy of motive and to see that there was adequate motive for the
accused to commit the crime. It is argued that from the copies of the news
items published in newspaper “Poora Sach” brought on the record by the
prosecution itself, it is no where made out that there was any threat from
Dera Sacha Sauda to newspaper “Poora Sach” or its owner/editor Ram
Chander Chhattarpati. It is also argued that from the testimonies of
witnesses i.e., PW-3, PW-5, PW-19 etc., it is apparent that “Poora Sach”
newspaper was only an evening newspaper and it appears that after
reading other newspapers, “Poora Sach” used to publish news in evening
edition and no new news was originated by it, but it used to compile the
news already published in other renowned newspapers and thus, any
question of any threat to its editor/owner does not arise. It is also pointed
out that there is no credible evidence regarding writing of letter dated
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 91
02.07.2002 by Ram Chander Chhattarpati to S.P., Sirsa, because neither
original letter nor any receipt of submitting the same to S.P., Sirsa has
come on record and further no relevant witness has been examined in this
regard and mere photocopy of letter has come on record as Mark PW3/22
and it is apparently made out that letter in question was not in existence,
more-so when it does not find mentioned in any of the publication in
“Poora Sach”. It is also argued that even though PW-3 Anshul
Chhattarpati has tried to give some statement regarding immediate motive
by stating that his father had told him that accused Krishan Lal had come
to his office and had threatened him, however said witness has admitted in
cross-examination that in the petition filed in the Hon'ble High Court and
in the complaint made to the Chief Minister, Haryana, the name of
Krishan Lal accused is not mentioned, meaning thereby that this version
was not there in the year 2003 when the writ petition was filed and it is an
improved version after due deliberation and consultation only to provide
motive in the present case. It is also argued that no news item of
extending threats by Dera people to Ram Chander Chhattarpati was
published in newspaper “Poora Sach” during relevant time. Further
pointed out that PW-3 Anshul Chhattarpati has also admitted that office of
his father was not attacked by Dera people. It is also submitted that when
anonymous letter was already in circulation and was published in many
newspapers, so any publication of news of anonymous letter in “Poora
Sach” on 30.05.2012 was of no consequence and therefore any alleged
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 92
motive that person of Ram Chander Chhattarpati or property of “Poora
Sach” was threatened by Dera people, is totally devoid of any force and
accordingly, it is argued that except improved and contradicted version of
interested witnesses, there is no credible evidence of alleged motive on
the part of any Dera people or its head to get Ram Chander Chhattarpati
attacked and eliminated. It is also argued that if there is no motive, then
there can be no conspiracy and since there was no threat to the deceased at
the hands of Dera people, so no incriminating circumstance qua any
motive on the part of Dera people to get eliminated Ram Chander
Chhattarpati has come on record. It is also submitted that when some part
regarding motive gets falsified, then the entire allegation regarding motive
also gets falsified. It is also contended that newspaper reports of “Poora
Sach” do not indicate any suspicion regarding any involvement of
Gurmeet Ram Rahim in the occurrence and there is no indication that
Ram Chander Chhattarpati faced any threats from Dera people and this
again falsify the prosecution case on this aspect.
99. It is also argued that premier investigating agency i.e. CBI
believed the entire version of investigation done by Haryana police except
non-mentioning of name of Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim in the charge sheet
of local police, however it is surprising that senior investigating officers
of CBI did not notice glaring infirmities in the prosecution case including
delay in sending the FIR to the Ilaqa Magistrate, inconsistent statements
of witnesses, material omissions and infirmities in the site plan prepared
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 93
by the investigating agency. Finally, prayer has been made to acquit the
accused as the prosecution has failed to establish its case against the
accused. To buttress their arguments, learned counsel for accused Kuldeep
Singh and Nirmal Singh have placed reliance upon Husna Vs. State of
Punjab 1996 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 657; Habeeb Mohammad Vs. State
of Hyderabad 1954 AIR (SC) 51; Santa Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1956
AIR (SC) 526; Vijay Singh Vs. State of M.P. 2005 CriLJ 299; Santokh
Singh and others Vs. State of M.P. 1988 CriLJ 1583; Ten Singh Vs. State
(Delhi Administration) 1996 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 342; Devi Prashad
Sharma and Ors. Vs. State 1996 (2) Crimes 254; Anter Singh Vs. State
of Rajasthan 2004 (2) Crimes 38; Raghbir Singh and another Vs. State
of Punjab 2008 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 510; Imamuddin Vs. State of
U.P. 2010 (7) R.C.R. (Criminal) 307; Jainul Haque Vs State of Bihar
1974 AIR (SC) 45; State of Punjab Vs Tehal Singh 1992 (2) R.C.R.
(Criminal) 184; Rama Vs. State of U.P., 1995 (1) Crimes 468;
Rameshwar Singh Vs. State of J&K, 1972 AIR (SC) 102; Tain Singh
Vs. State (Delhi Admn.) 1987 CriLJ 53; Parmod Kumar Vs. The State
1920 (2) C.L.R. 418; Satpal Vs. State of Haryana 2000 (2) R.C.R.
(Criminal) 720; Dharam Pal Vs. State, 2010 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal)
973; Sukhbir Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab 2011 CriLJ 2336;
Kanakarajan @ Kanakan Vs. State of Kerala 2017 (3) RCR (Criminal)
417; Sudan and others Vs. State of U.P. 2004 (50) ACrC 376; Yudhishtir
Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 1971 SCC (Crl) 684; Badrudin Rukonddin
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 94
Karpude & Others Vs. State of Maharashtra 1981 CAR 187 (SC);
Gurdev Singh Vs. Nasib Chand and others, 2009 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal)
285; Subhash Vs. State of Haryana, 2011 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 338;
Harbeer Singh Vs. Sheeshpal & Others 2016 (4) RCR (Criminal) 747;
Harnam Singh and others Vs. The State, 1965 PLR 960; Ram Narain Vs.
State of Punjab 1975 AIR (SC) 1727; The State of Punjab Vs. Charanjit
Singh and others 1979 C.C. Cases 1 (P&H); Gurdev Singh and others
Vs. State of Punjab 1991 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 608; Ramgopal Vs.
State of Maharashtra 1972 AIR (SC) 656; Inder Singh Vs. State of
Punjab 1989 (1) RCR (Criminal) 49; Balakrushna Swain Vs. State of
Orissa 1971 AIR (SC) 804; Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan 1972
CriLJ 824; Chuhar Singh Vs. State of Haryana 1975 (2) The Criminal
Law Time 487; Muluwa S/o Bindaand Others Vs. State of M.P. 1976
AIR (SC) 989; Awadhesh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 1988 (1) RCR
(Criminal) 649; Jamiruddin Molla Vs. State 1991 CriLJ 356; State of
Karnataka Vs. Venkatesh 1992 (1) RCR (Criminal) 485; Jagjit Singh @
Jagga Vs. State of Punjab 2005 (3) RCR (Criminal) 647; Gurdev Singh
and others Vs. The State 1963 PLR 409; Bhag Singh Vs. The State of
Haryana 1979 C.C. Cases 51 (P&H); Banwari & others Vs. The State
of Haryana 1979 Criminal Law Reporter (P&H) 217; Kamaljit Singh
Vs. State of Punjab, 1980 CriLJ 542; Pritpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab
1987 (2) RCR (Criminal) 68; Daya Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1987
(2) RCR (Criminal) 97; Balwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1992 (1)
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 95
C.C.Cases 396 (HC); Pritam Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab 1994
(1) RCR (Criminal) 172; Meharaj Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
1994 (2) RCR (Criminal) 626; Suraj Mal Vs. State of Haryana 1996
(1) RCC 301; Tamilselvan Vs. State 2009 (1) RCR (Criminal) 269 and
Devender alias Latkan Vs. State of Haryana 2016 (4) RCR (Criminal)
974.
100. Further, Sh. Anil Kaushik, Advocate, learned counsel
representing accused Krishan Lal has argued that no credible evidence has
come on record to make out culpability of this accused for the alleged
offences. It is argued that tenor, manner and guarded language of
statement of Ex.PW5/A would show that first informant is a projected
witness. It is further argued that no descriptions of the alleged assailants
has been given by the first informant and no test identification parade was
ever got conducted and therefore identification of the alleged assailants
remains doubtful. It is also argued that no evidence has come on record
regarding any association of accused Krishan Lal with other co-accused,
namely, Nirmal Singh and Kuldeep Singh. It is further argued that
recovery of weapon of offence is also not free from doubt in the light of
statements of relevant witnesses i.e. PW-19 Vishwajeet, PW-30 Vijay
Singh, PW-21 Lekh Raj etc. It is also argued that name of Krishan Lal
does not find mentioned in the alleged disclosure statements of Kuldeep
Singh and Nirmal Singh, even though such disclosure statements are
inadmissible in evidence. It is also submitted that disclosure statements
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 96
do not match with the broad facts of the case and thus, apparent falsehood
in involving the accused in false case is writ large. It is further contended
that alleged scooter does not belong to Krishan Lal and even otherwise,
after 26.10.2002 whatever is reflected to be recovered, no such article was
deposited in the Malkhana of the concerned police station. It is also
argued that name of accused Krishan Lal is neither mentioned in the first
information report (FIR) nor in the statements of the witnesses and
further in the absence of any evidence qua criminal conspiracy, no case
against this accused is made out. It is further contended that self
contradictory testimony of PW Khatta Singh is not sufficient to infer
involvement of Krishan Lal in any criminal conspiracy and further no
motive on the part of this accused has been brought in order to make out
his involvement in any such conspiracy. It is also argued that PW Khatta
Singh is totally untrustworthy and unreliable witness and no reliance can
be placed on his statement in the light of his conduct and change of his
version from time to time. It is also argued that there are material
discrepancies qua the seals affixed on the parcels containing incriminating
articles including allegedly recovered revolver, cartridges, bullets etc. and
thus no reliance can be placed upon FSL reports Ex.PW28/A and
Ex.PW27/1 and the important link evidence is missing, thereby creating
serious dent in the prosecution case. It is also pointed out that .32 bore
revolver was produced in court in evidence of PW-21 Lekh Raj and
revolver in question was not produced in court with the seal of FSL,
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 97
Serology, rather the same was produced with the seal of “BS” and it
shows that revolver of Krishan Lal was not examined in the FSL and thus,
no incriminating circumstance has come on record against this accused in
any manner. It is argued that in the light of discrepancies in the statements
of witnesses regarding sealing impression, it is apparently made out that
recoveries are planted, result of fabrication and creation of false evidence
in order to implicate the accused falsely. Finally, prayer has been made to
acquit the accused as no evidence connecting the accused with the
occurrence has come on record.
101. Further, Sh. P.K. Sandhir, Advocate, learned counsel for
accused Gurmeet Ram Rahim has vehemently argued that main charge
against this accused is that of alleged criminal conspiracy, however,
prosecution has miserably failed to establish guilt of this accused for the
alleged offence. It is argued that there are various circumstances which
not only make the prosecution version improbable and unreliable but also
point out that case set up by prosecution against this accused is piece of
fiction. In this regard, it is pointed out that occurrence is dated 24.10.2002
and first charge-sheet was filed by the Haryana police in court in
December, 2003 against Kuldeep Singh, Nirmal Singh and Krishan Lal
and the name of Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim does not figure in this charge
sheet, including the statements recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of various
witnesses including complainant. Further pointed out that one of the
alleged assailants was apprehended at the place of occurrence and name
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 98
of the Dera came on the record on the very first night and news item
regarding the occurrence was published in the newspaper, namely, “Poora
Sach” of the injured, but again there is no mention of involvement of this
accused in the alleged occurrence or the version that Baba Gurmeet Ram
Rahim, being the person, behind the occurrence is not there. Further
pointed out that injured was treated in various hospitals, but nowhere has
the injured disclosed any such name during the course of his treatment
and the concerned family members or the victim himself do not point any
accusing finger at Gurmeet Ram Rahim. Further pointed out that two
witnesses, namely, Lekh Raj and Deepak, who are close friends/relative of
the injured, have witnessed disclosure/recovery of accused Nirmal Singh
and Kuldeep Singh, but name of Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim does not
figure in the statement of any of the accused or other witnesses and
therefore, evidence coming on record is to be appreciated in the light of
such undisputed facts. It is further pointed out that name of Baba
Gurmeet Ram Rahim cropped up for the first time only on 10.02.2003 i.e.
after more than two months of the filing of the charge-sheet and three and
half months of the occurrence when Anshul Chhattarpati filed criminal
miscellaneous petition in the Hon'ble High Court and there is no
explanation of such delay to make out allegations against this accused. It
is argued that it is nobody's case that family of the victim could not cite
the name of Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim for some fear. Further argued that
accused Gurmeet Ram Rahim himself is victim of conspiracy based upon
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 99
very solid legal advise, which is apparently made out in the light of facts
and circumstances submitted earlier. It is further contended that even
though there is reference to only one purported representation dated
03.12.2002 in the criminal miscellaneous petition filed in February 2003,
but no postal receipt/UPC/proof of receipt in the concerned office has
been given by Anshul to the CBI as admitted by him in his evidence and
even the CBI did not collect any evidence during the investigation that
any such letter dated 03.12.2002 was infact sent or ever received in the
concerned office and thereafter, no action was taken upon it and hence,
the very basis of the petition alleging that Haryana police was not
properly investigating or was rather shielding Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim
falls to the ground and it is apparently made out that this allegation has
been made after much delay as a result of due consultation.
102. It is further argued that improved version of prosecution
witnesses i.e., Anshul, Deepak etc. with regard to intentional omitting the
name of Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim in the statement recorded by SI-Ram
Chander u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of injured Ram Chander Chhattarpati is nothing
but smartly introduced ploy to drag the name of Gurmeet Ram Rahim in
this case. It is further pointed out that from the statement of prosecution
witnesses, it is made out that they came to know about the mischief of SI-
Ram Chander in not recording the statement of Ram Chander Chhattarpati
properly during the investigation by the local police, but oral as well as
documentary evidence make out that it is concocted story of the
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 100
prosecution as a result of after thought so as to make out that there is
some dying declaration of the deceased. In this regard, it is pointed out
that there is documentary evidence in the form of publications of
newspaper “Poora Sach” from 27.10.2002 to 31.10.2002 and recovery
memo Ex.PW3/1 dated 13.07.2005, but there is no mention that SI-Ram
Chander had not recorded the statement correctly and had omitted name
of Gurmeet Ram Rahim and there is no explanation given for it when the
newspaper was reporting each and every fact on day to day basis. Further
pointed out that there is an application dated 08.11.2002 Ex.PW3/C
moved by Sohana Ram, i.e. father of the deceased, before the Deputy
Commissioner, but there is no allegation in the application that the
statement of Ram Chander Chhattarpati has not been correctly recorded.
Further pointed out that not only this, it is also made out from the
statement of concerned witness that the application Ex.PW3/C was
prepared in the presence of PW-21 Lekh Raj, but still there is no such
averment that statement of injured was not recorded correctly. Further
pointed out that there is also evidence in the shape of new report in
newspaper “Poora Sach” that on 27.10.2002 Chief Minister of Haryana
personally went to PGI, Rohtak and met Ram Chander Chhattarpati and
talked to him, but no complaint was made to the Chief Minister or any
other official that name of Gurmeet Ram Rahim was being omitted from
the statement of injured. It is further pointed out that the oral evidence in
the form of statements of PW-3 Anshul and PW-21 Lekh Raj further make
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 101
out that they did not complain to D.C./S.P. to the effect that statement of
Ram Chander Chhattarpati had not been correctly recorded. It is also
pointed out that PW-21 Lekh Raj has also conceded that when he gave his
statement to the State police on 29.10.2002 or to the CBI on 14.12.2003,
then he did not state about his telephonic conversation with the deceased
on 26.10.2002 and that police had not correctly recorded his (deceased)
statement. It is further argued that even though statement of injured Ram
Chander Chhattapati was recorded by SI-Ram Chander after the doctor
had declared the injured fit on 26.10.2002 and the injured died due to the
injuries on 21.11.2002 before any Magistrate could record his statement,
so this statement recorded by SI-Ram Chander is admissible u/s 32 of the
Indian Evidence Act as it is coming from deceased's mouth, but the said
piece of evidence has been withheld by the prosecution and has not been
tendered in evidence and therefore without proving the same, how can
the contents and omissions be considered. It is also pointed out that even
though the investigation was later on transferred to the CBI and SI-Ram
Chander was cited as a witness in the supplementary challan filed by the
CBI, but he is not produced as a witness. Further neither SI-Ram Chander
is arraigned as an accused for offence u/s 218 IPC while filing
supplementary challan filed by the CBI. It is also pointed out that a close
scrutiny of evidence of PW-3 Anshul and PW-25 Deepak suggest that
both of them are totally unreliable on this issue because PW-3 Anshul in
his examination-in-chief states that statement of the deceased was
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 102
recorded by SI-Ram Chander in his presence and in the presence of
Mukesh but in his cross-examination, he states that he only was present
when statement of his father was recorded and none else in the ICU.
Further this witness admits in his statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. that
he is not stating that the statement of deceased was recorded in his
presence, meaning thereby that his own presence is doubtful. Further
pointed out that PW-25 Deepak was examined by the State police on
28.10.2002 and he claimed that he gave out all the facts of 26.10.2002 to
the I.O. but in his statement Ex.PW25/DA, no such fact is recorded and he
has been duly confronted on this aspect and it is apparently made out that
there is vital improvement regarding his presence and his observation that
name of Gurmeet Ram Rahim has been omitted deliberately. Further
pointed out that from the statement of PW-25, it is made out that he has
made a statement on this aspect for the first time after about nine years
and the same cannot be relied upon, especially when there is no
explanation for the delay. It is also pointed out that both PW-3 and PW-
25 further get contradicted as to the time of recording the statement of
Ram Chander Chhattarpati by SI Ram Chander on 26.10.2002 as both
these witnesses have stated time and again that SI-Ram Chander visited
ICU at 11.30 a.m. and by the noon time, he had already recorded the
statement of Ram Chander Chhattarpati, but PW-29 Dr. J.K. Maheshwari,
who is an independent witness and declared the injured fit for making the
statement vide opinion Ex.PW29/B, has stated that statement of Ram
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 103
Chander Chhattarpati was recorded by the police after 05.00 p.m. in the
ICU on 26.10.2002 and evidence of doctor Dr. J.K. Maheshwari is
supported by document i.e. Ex.PW29/B with time of 05.10 p.m. Learned
counsel has accordingly argued that in the light of aforementioned
circumstances in the evidence, the factum of oral dying declaration
becomes suspicious.
103. It is further argued that it it settled legal proposition that oral
dying declaration is a weak kind of evidence where the exact words
uttered by the deceased are not available. In this regard, it is also pointed
out that words spoken by the deceased in case of dying declaration need
to be produced but PW-3 Anshul and PW-25 Deepak have made totally
contradictory statements in this regard. It is also argued that even PW-30
Vijay Singh, I.O., who had sent SI-Ram Chander to PGI to record the
statement of injured, has also categorically stated that no complaint was
made to him by anyone about incorrect recording of statement of Ram
Chander Chhattarpati. It is further pointed out that PW-3 Anshul does not
say that his father first told them and then repeated the same to SI-Ram
Chander and even when the CBI took up the investigation, victim's
family did not come up to make such assertions and it seems that when
PW-25 Deepak entered the witness box, prosecution made an attempt to
establish oral dying declaration, but the confronted portions make out that
PW-25 has made substantial improvements in his testimony before the
court, which in turn shows the intention and also the credit-worthiness of
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 104
the witnesses. It is also argued that had the victim disclosed this fact
during his treatment it could not have been left unreported because
whatever was happening, the same was being reported in the newspaper
of victim himself and even filing of criminal miscellaneous petition was
reported in the said newspaper and logical inference of such evidence
make out that the alleged recording of statement of Ram Chander
Chhattarpati incorrectly, did not happen. It is also pointed out that as per
medical evidence, injured patient was conscious and there was every
opportunity to disclose the name of Gurmeet Ram Rahim or make oral
dying declaration at Civil Hospital, Sirsa or in PGI, Rohtak but nothing of
the sort happened. Further argued that so far as evidence of PW-44 Dr.
Asha Srivastava is concerned, the report of polygraph cannot be used as a
piece of evidence even against the subject in the light of law laid down in
Selvi's case, 2010 (2) RCR (Criminal) 896. Further pointed out that
witness (PW44) has not given the reasons to come to the conclusion that
SI-Ram Chander was evasive/deceptive. Further argued that since on the
basis of polygraph report and the statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of other
witnesses, SI-Ram Chander has not been prosecuted u/s 218 IPC along
with Gurmeet Ram Rahim in the same trial, the said circumstance cannot
be used against this accused even as confessional statement of co-accused
u/s 30 of the India Evidence Act. It is also pointed out that SI-Ram
Chander has been given up as unnecessary and the prosecution has thus
withheld the important evidence which could have been the best
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 105
corroboration to the ocular evidence and it seems that CBI has acted as a
persecutor to some how bring in Gurmeet Ram Rahim even at the cost of
loosing best evidence. It is argued that when the witness in his statement
u/s 161 Cr.P.C. has not disclosed certain facts, but meets certain facts for
the first time in court, such version lacks credence and is liable to
discarded. It is also contended that oral dying declaration is also not
coming at the earliest opportunity and assertions of PW-25 Deepak, who
is a close relative of the deceased, is a belated attempt of the complainant
party to introduce another oral dying declaration only to some how
implicate Gurmeet Ram Rahim and it is apparently made out that
inclusion of name of Gurmeet Ram Rahim in the supplementary challan
by the CBI is a motivated attempt, without there being any credible
evidence.
104. Further argued that motive aspect is also not at all proved on
record qua Gurmeet Ram Rahim to make out that he has any connection
with alleged criminal conspiracy. It is pointed out that PW-1 Balwant
Singh does not name Gurmeet Ram Rahim in any manner and further
PW-2 Raja Ram's version is proved to be a local reaction. Further pointed
out that there are major improvements in the evidence of PW-2 Raja Ram
Handiya as is made out from the confronted portion in his statement
Ex.DC and such improved version is not at all admissible against accused
Gurmeet Ram Rahim and even otherwise the same is not further
admissible as persons named in the statement of PW-2 are not co-accused
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 106
of present accused. Further pointed out that there is no corroboration of
version of PW-2 as there is no DDR or FIR produced by the CBI in this
regard. Further pointed out that so far as evidence of PW-4 R.K. Sethi
and PW-37 Madan Bansal, regarding the attack on newspaper “Lekha
Jokha” is concerned, the same also does not prove any link between
Gurmeet Ram Rahim and the attack. Further pointed out that evidence of
afore-mentioned witnesses can at the most be taken as general reaction of
Dera followers and cannot be used a piece of evidence to connect accused
Gurmeet Ram Rahim in the absence of any definite evidence that at all
these places, it was being done at the instance and on the instructions of
Gurmeet Ram Rahim. It is also pointed out that even though writing of
letter dated 02.07.2002/Mark PW3/22 is not proved on record as per law,
yet the letter does not name Gurmeet Ram Rahim as the person extending
any threat to the deceased and does not indicate any sort of conspiracy on
his part. Neither PW-4 nor PW-37 named Gurmeet Ram Rahim to be
responsible for any kind of attack. It is also pointed out that none of the
material documents make out that any alleged threat was ever extended to
deceased Ram Chander Chhattarpati at the behest of Gurmeet Ram Rahim
and the absence of the same from material documents make out that
improved version of witnesses on this aspect does not inspire confidence.
It is also pointed out that PW-5 Aridaman did not name Gurmeet Ram
Rahim in his initial or supplementary statement and likewise, PW-3
Anshul has not named Gurmeet Ram Rahim that he has given any threat
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 107
or that he was the man behind the act of causing gunshot injuries to his
father and all these facts clearly make out that prosecution has failed to
prove any motive on the part of Gurmeet Ram Rahim to order elimination
of deceased. It is also pointed out that the alleged visit of Krishan Lal to
the office of deceased just 15 days prior to the occurrence also does not
inspire confidence, because neither Narinder Parikh has been examined
nor these facts are mentioned in the statements of Aridaman or Anshul
recorded by the Haryana police or the CBI. It is also pointed out that in
the supplementary challan, alleged threat is stated to have been given on
telephone by Krishan Lal or Gurmeet Ram Rahim, but in the court neither
Aridaman nor Anshul has stated about any such threat having been given
by Gurmeet Ram Rahim on phone to the deceased. It is also argued that it
is settled law that mere proof of motive alone is not enough to connect the
accused with any alleged criminal conspiracy and motive by itself cannot
be a proof of conspiracy.
105. Next, it is argued that PW-31 Khatta Singh is totally an
unreliable witness. It is argued that PW-31 has earned the ultimate
notoriety with his conduct and has beaten the quality of chameleon in
such a way that chameleon would feel ashamed in the presence of Khatta
Singh. It is argued that Khatta Singh has given delayed and coloured
version at the first instance. It is submitted that first infirmity in his
version is that his version has seen light of the day on 26.12.2006, after a
gap of more than four years of the alleged occurrence and moreover, even
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 108
in the statement dated 26.12.2006 version of conspiracy dated 23.10.2002
is conspicuous by its omission and the version of conspiracy dated
23.10.2002 has seen the light of the day in the statement of Khatta Singh
only on 21.06.2007 vide statement Ex.PW31/A and this much delay
speaks volumes about the veracity of this witness. It is argued that only
explanation of delayed version given by Khatta Singh is that he was under
threat and pressure as Gurmeet Ram Rahim, being Dera head, was having
numerous followers and had a strong political clout, but said witness has
not given a single specific instance and time, date, place of alleged
threats and by whom he was threatened, pressurized or influenced for not
coming forward to give version about involvement of Gurmeet Ram
Rahim. It is also pointed out that version given by Khatta Singh
regarding alleged conspiracy dated 23.10.2002 is totally inconsistent and
contrary to the version of conspiracy in the charge-sheet filed by the State
police, which further demolish the prosecution case qua accused Gurmeet
Ram Rahim. It is argued that Khatta Singh has been used as a convenient
witness in the supplementary charge-sheet filed by the CBI after finding
no other alternative, because there was neither any confession of any of
the accused, namely, Kuldeep Singh, Nirmal Singh and Krishan Lal nor
there was any evidence of extra judicial confession and this witness was
conveniently used as eye-witness of alleged conspiracy, however conduct
of this witness apparently make out that he is dishonest and is self
condemned witness and is liar of first order and is the most untrustworthy
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 109
witness. It is pointed out that when this witness has appeared as PW-31 on
19.05.2012, he bade farewell to the prosecution case and has stated that
he did not know Ram Chander Chhattarpati or any newspaper “Poora
Sach” or that on 23.10.2002 he did not visit Jallandhar with Gurmeet Ram
Rahim. He also stated in his testimony recorded in the court in the year
2012 that statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. was got dictated. It is also pointed out
that this witness was cross-examined by learned PP for the CBI at length
and the examination of this witness was conducted for a period spanning
about 11 months from 19.05.2012 to 20.04.2013 but during this period,
neither witness Khatta Singh nor the Public Prosecutor moved any
application that the witness was resiling from his previous statement
under threat, pressure of Gurmeet Ram Rahim and this witness did not
complain to the court or to the Public Prosecutor that he was giving the
statement under pressure and threat to his life. Further pointed out that
after more than six years of his deposition in the court in the year 2012,
this witness again comes up in the year 2018 and claims that his earlier
version given in year 2012 was not true and that it was given under threat
and pressure of accused, which is again falsified in the light of admitted
facts that Khatta Singh was having official security in the form of two
Gunmen since 2005 and till date he was having the security with him and
he is also an Arms license holder since 1980 and his son-in-law is a police
officer of Inspector/SHO rank and furthermore, he had never moved any
application or complaint before any authority alleging any threat to his
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 110
life at the hands of Gurmeet Ram Rahim during this period. It is pointed
that PW-31, in his cross-examination dated 15.05.2018, has admitted that
he had not moved any application regarding threats extended to him
during the period 2005 to 2018. It is also pointed out that Khatta Singh
has again become a witness against Gurmeet Ram Rahim in the year 2015
in the case pertaining to alleged castration of devotees and thus, alleged
fear or threat at the hands of Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim cannot be stated
to be existing in the mind of this witness in the year 2015 and any such
version is false and furthermore, he has also given different versions for
resiling in the statement of this witness recorded by the I.O. in the case
pertaining to alleged castration of devotees. It is also pointed out that this
witness had moved an application before the Court of Magistrate for
recording his statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. as CBI was pressurising for false
statement and in the year 2012, he does not deny this fact at the time of
his examination before the court and further the factum of moving
revision petition in March, 2007 is also proved on record and the CBI had
appeared in the said revision petition, but the statement of the witness was
got recorded at Chandigarh before Magistrate, which further casts serious
doubt on the investigation of investigating agency. It is also argued that on
the complaint of Krishan Lal, the Investigating Officers had been
summoned vide order dated 06.07.2006 and it gives opportunity of
vendetta to the investigating agency/CBI. It is also pointed out that at the
time of hearing the petition before the Hon'ble High Court on 28.07.2005,
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 111
learned CBI counsel made a statement in the court that field investigation
was over, but thereafter statement of Khatta Singh was recorded, which is
very much part of field investigation and all these facts point out
motivated investigation of the investigating agency. It is also argued that
this witness has also earned the title of an inimical witness when he has
stated that his life has been ruined by Baba at the time of recording his
statement by the investigating agency in the year 2015 in the case of
alleged castration. It is further argued that witness Khatta Singh is
consistently inconsistent witness and is unworthy of any reliance because
this witness has done somersault from time to time and thus made a
mockery of oath administered to a witness at the time of examination in
the court. It is pointed out that this witness has denied the statement on
oath dated 22.06.2003 while making deposition in the court in the year
2012-2013 and then statement on oath of the year 2012-2013 denied to be
true in the year 2018 and thus he is witness whose sanctity can be judged
from simple facts on record. It is also argued that even though Khatta
Singh claims to be shadow of Gurmeet Ram Rahim as a driver who used
to go with him, but he has shown complete ignorance about the social
activities of the Dera head undertaken by Gurmeet Ram Rahim personally
during 2001-2002 in Gujarat, Rajasthan etc. and thus such a witness
cannot be relied upon at all.
106. It is also pointed out that place of alleged conspiracy is
alleged to be Gufa but there is no site plan of this place of occurrence and
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 112
neither witness pointed out this place to investigating agency nor I.O.
cared to prepare any site plan and moreover, the explanation of PW-46 M.
Narayanan that the earlier I.O. had visited the place of Gufa is not tenable
because prior to 21.06.2002, conspiracy at Gufa was not in picture. It is
also argued that evidence led by the prosecution is puerile one and when
such evidence is not disclosed for many months or years, then such
evidence has been held to be unreliable by Hon'ble Supreme Court in its
various judgments. It is also submitted that Khatta Singh's version has not
been verified during the investigation as is made out from the testimony
of Investigating Officer, hence his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. cannot be
used as a substantive piece of evidence. It is also argued that even though
witness Khatta Singh has been recalled for further examination on the
orders of Hon'ble High Court, but order of Hon'ble High Court makes it
clear that evidence already on record is to be considered and that credit
worthiness of this witness is to be tested in the light of entire testimony of
this witness, which in turn is found to be totally unreliable, untrustworthy.
It is also argued that any explanation of this witness regarding any threat
from Dera is not corroborated by any documentary or oral evidence. It is
also pointed that there are material improvements and omissions which
amount to contradictions, which are sufficient to impeach the credibility
of this witness. Further submitted that from the evidence on record, it is
made out that Khatta Singh was a witness for all seasons and is a stock
witness against Gurmeet Ram Rahim. It is also submitted that once the
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 113
prosecution decided to put questions to this witness after declaring him
hostile in the year 2012 and took a stand by putting suggestions to the
effect that he was suppressing the truth, then it cannot be allowed to argue
to the contrary as otherwise there would be no sanctity to the conscious
stand taken by the prosecuting agency. It is also argued that so far as letter
dated 09.01.2001 is concerned, the same again does not inspire
confidence as PW-39 B.L. Soni, the then DIG, CBI has stated in his cross-
examination that neither any investigation nor any enquiry was conducted
on the said letter and further states that he did not know whether Khatta
Singh or his son were residing on the address given on the envelope and
thus the theory of fear or threat is not at all plausible and is being
introduced now in order to make a somersault by this witness. It is finally
argued that this witness is having scant respect for truth and is not at all
reliable and testimony of Khatta Singh cannot be made a ground to
convict accused Gurmeet Ram Rahim. Finally, prayer has been made to
acquit Gurmeet Ram Rahim as no credible evidence regarding his
involvement in criminal conspiracy has come on record. In support of his
arguments, learned counsel for accused Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim has
placed reliance upon Dilawar Singh versus State of Delhi 2007(4) RCR
(Criminal) 115; Khedu Mohton Vs. State of Bihar 1970 SCC
(Criminal) 479; Waikhom Yaima Singh Vs. State of Manipur 2012 (1)
SCC (Criminal) 788; Smt. Selvi & Others Vs. State of Karnataka AIR
2010 (SC) 1974; Suresh Budharmal Kalani @ Pappu Kalani Vs. State of
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 114
Maharashtra 1998 SCC (Criminal) 1625; Kalapnath Rai Vs. State 1998
SCC (Criminal) 134; Param Hans Yadav and Sadanand Tripathi Vs.
State of Bihar 1987 SCC (Criminal) 332; State of M.P. through CBI Vs.
Paltan Mallah 2005 SCC (Criminal) 674; Girja Shankar Misra Vs. State
of U.P. 1994 SCC (Criminal) 214; Saju Vs. State of Kerala 2001 SCC
(Criminal) 160; Nisharuddin Vs. State of U.P. and Others 2017 (1)
RCR (Criminal) 512; Ram Kishan Singh Vs. Harmit Kaur 1972 SCC
(Criminal) 493; Krishna Sonowal Vs. State of Assam 1987 (1) Crimes
336; Kehar Singh Vs. State (Delhi) 1988 SCC (Criminal) 711.
Findings of Court
107. It is the case of the prosecution that accused Gurmeet Ram
Rahim Singh, Krishan Lal, Kuldeep Singh and Nirmal Singh entered into
a criminal conspiracy to eliminate of Ram Chander Chattarpati and in
pursuance of the same, accused Nirmal Singh and Kuldeep Singh
committed murder of Ram Chander Chhattarpati by causing gunshot
injuries on 24.10.2002. In order to convict the accused persons, it is
necessary to connect the accused with the offences alleged against them
and the prosecution can prove its case against the accused either by
leading direct evidence or by placing circumstantial evidence on record.
In case of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances placed against the
accused must be that they must form a chain pointing towards the guilt of
the accused alone.
108. After considering facts and evidence on record as well as
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 115
rival contentions of the parties, following points arise for determination
before this court:-
1. Whether death of deceased Ram Chander Chhattarpati is
homicidal in nature i.e. caused by gunshot injuries caused to
him by the assailants?
2. Whether death of deceased Ram Chander Chhattarpati is a
result of gunshot injuries caused to him with .32 bore
revolver and whether the weapon of offence, i.e. .32 bore
revolver, is licensed weapon of accused Krishan Lal?
3. Whether culpability of accused Kuldeep Singh and Nirmal
Singh for causing murder of deceased Ram Chander
Chhattarpati by intentionally causing his death by inflicting
fire arm injuries on his person is duly made out in the light of
evidence on record and whether prosecution has been
successful in establishing guilt of these accused for
committing offence punishable 302/120-B IPC?
4. Whether prosecution has been able to establish that murder
of deceased Ram Chander Chhattarpati is in pursuance of
criminal conspiracy and whether accused Baba Gurmeet
Ram Rahim Singh, Krishan Lal, Nirmal Singh and Kuldeep
Singh are found to be involved in criminal conspiracy to
eliminate deceased Ram Chander Chhattarpati?
5. Whether prosecution has been successful in establishing guilt
of accused Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh and Krishan Lal
for committing offence punishable 120-B/302 IPC?
6. Whether prosecution has been successful in establishing
culpability of accused Krishan Lal and Nirmal Singh for
contravention of provisions of the Arms Act, 1959?
7. Conclusion.
109. In case of murder, the first duty of the prosecution is to prove
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 116
that death of deceased/victim is homicidal in nature. In the instant case, as
per prosecution version, deceased Ram Chander Chhattarpati sustained
fire arm injuries at the hands of accused Kuldeep Singh and Nirmal Singh,
which resulted into his death on 21.11.2002. The factum of sustaining fire
arm injuries by the deceased Ram Chander Chhattarpati stands duly
established vide ocular as well as medical evidence in the form of
testimonies of PW-5 Aridaman, PW-3 Anshul Chhattarpati, PW-6 Dr. Dale
Singh, PW-8 Dr. R.K. Karwasra, PW-9 Dr. Parvin Kumar Singh, PW-10
Dr. Chitranjan Behera etc. Both the eye-witnesses, PW-5 Aridaman and
PW-3 Anshul Chhattarpati have categorically deposed that on 24.10.2002
at about 07.30/08.00 p.m., two assailants fired gunshots at their father
outside their house in Sirsa and thereafter, their father was taken to Civil
Hospital, Sirsa where from doctors referred him to PGI, Rohtak and then
their father was shifted to Apollo Hospital, Delhi where he expired on
21.11.2002 on account of bullet injuries. Further PW-6 Dr. Dale Singh,
who was posted as Medical Officer at General Hospital, Sirsa and
examined injured Ram Chander Chhattarpati on 24.10.2002, has deposed
that the injured was brought by his son Anshul and there was history of
fire arm injuries and on examination, following injuries were found on the
person of injured :-
“1. A lacerated wound of 1 cm x 1 cm on right side abdomen.
6 cm below and 4 cm lateral to umbilicus. Colour of abrasion
was present. Blood was oozing. X-rays and Surgeon's opinion
was sought.
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 117
2. A lacerated wound of 1 cm x 3/4th cm on right side chest
inter scapular region. Medial to scapula. Colour of abrasion
was present. Blood was oozing.
3. A lacerated wound of 1 cm x 3/4th cm on thorecolumber
region at vertibral column slightly lateral side. Colour of
abrasion was present. Blood was oozing.
4. A lacerated wound of 6 cm x 1 cm into cutaneous tissue deep
on right thigh medial side. Colour of abrasion was present.”
This witness has also brought on record copy of MLR of
injured as Ex.PW6/A and pictorial diagram showing seats of injuries as
Ex.PW6/B.
110. Further PW-8 Dr. R.K. Karwasra, who was head of
department of surgery at PGIMS, Rohtak, has brought on record operation
notes of the injured as Ex.PW8/A and X-ray films as well as CT scan
films. He has also deposed that injured Ram Chander Chhattarpati had
arm injuries on his person and was in serious condition and team of
doctors conducted surgery on the injured. Further stated that as per
record, injured patient had four injuries i.e., one injury on abdomen, one
on right thigh and two on the back of the chest. Further PW-9 Dr. Parvin
Kumar Singh, who was Radiologist at PGIMS, Rohtak and had conducted
radiological examination of injured Ram Chander Chhattarpati, has
deposed that as per the report, radio opaque shadow of metallic density
with size and shape of bullet seen opposite D-11 vertebra and another
radio opaque shadow of metallic density with size and shape of bullet
seen opposite D-12 vertebra. Further PW-10 Dr. Chitranjan Behera, who
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 118
was Resident doctor at AIIMS, New Delhi and who had conducted
postmortem examination of deceased Ram Chander Chhattarpati, has
deposed that he found following ante-mortem external injuries on the
body of the deceased :-
1. Wound of size 2cm x 1 cm oval in shape, with granulation
tissue present at margin over right abdomen placed 5cm
right to midline, 32 cm below and left to right nipple and
95 cm right foot.
2. Wound of size 1.5cm x 1 cm, oval in shape, partially
healed, over Thoracolumbar region in midline placed 118
cm above foot.
3. Wound of size 1 cm x .5 cm oval in shape, partially
healed, over Thoracolumbar region in midline placed 118
cm above foot.
4. Wound of size (5 cm x 1 cm), vertically placed, partially
healed present over medical aspect of right thigh placed
15 cm above right knee joint.
5. Stitched wound of length 2.7 cm over abdomen in
midline, placed vertically.
6. Stitched wound of length 2.5 cm vertically placed over
right abdomen, placed 14 cm right to midline and 22 cm
below right nipple.
7. Stitched wound of length 2.7 cm vertically placed over
right abdomen, placed 12 cm right to midline and 30 cm
below right nipple.
8. Stitched wound of length 5 cm transversally on mid
axillary line of right side 10 cm right to right nipple and
25 cm below right tip shoulder.
9. Stitched would of length 2 cm vertically placed 3 cm
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 119
below wound number 8.
10.Switched wound of length 2 cm over left axillary region
on midline 15 cm below left tip of shoulder.
11.Stitched wound of length 2 cm over left axillary region on
midline 15 cm below left tip of shoulder.
12.Stitched wound of size 2 cm over lower neck, anterior
aspect in midline.
He has further deposed that cause of death in this case was
septicemia consequent upon ante-mortem gunshot injuries, which is
sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and all injuries were
ante-mortem in nature. Further PW-11 Dr. Sushil Kumar Jain, Senior
Consultant, Apollo Hospital, who had brought file of Ram Chander
Chhattarpati, has deposed that injured patient was brought to emergency
of Apollo Hospital on 08.11.2002 at 05.00 p.m. and the patient was having
gunshot injuries on his abdomen and chest and the patient died on
21.11.2002 at Apollo Hospital, New Delhi. This witness has brought on
record copy of death summary as Ex.PW11/A and death certificate of
deceased Ram Chander Chhattarpati as Ex.PW11/B and deposed that
cause of death in this case was septicemia with acute renal failure with
multi organ failure due to gunshot injuries. Thus, in the light of afore
discussed evidence, it is made out that death of deceased Ram Chander
Chhattarpati occurred as a result of gunshot injuries.
111. Now, the next question arises is as to who caused gunshot
injuries to the deceased and it is also to be seen as to whether prosecution
has adduced sufficient, cogent and positive evidence on record to
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 120
establish that accused Kuldeep Singh and Nirmal Singh were the
assailants who caused gunshot injuries in pursuance of criminal
conspiracy. As already noticed that in the present case criminal law was
set into motion on the statement Ex.PW5/A of complainant Aridaman
made on 24.10.2002, on the basis of which FIR Ex.PW30/4 was initially
registered. As per the statement Ex.PW5/A, on 24.10.2002 at about
08.00/7.45 p.m., complainant Aridaman, his father, his elder brother
Anshul and his sister Shreysi were sitting in their house for taking meals
and at that time, some one called his father by calling his name from
backside lane of the house and their father came outside and they also
followed and when they came outside they saw two youths holding pistols
and one of them asked other by saying “Kuldeep Maar Goli” and the other
one fired at his father and then they cried “Bachao Bachao”, then Kuldeep
stated to the other “Nirmal Bhag Le, Kaam Ho Gaya Hai” and when the
assailants tried to escape, then on hearing their cries, 2-3 police personnel,
who were patrolling there, came running to that place and apprehended
one of the assailants and the other one escaped on scooter. Complainant
Aridaman has been examined as PW-5 and has duly supported the version
given in his statement Ex.PW5/A. He has broadly deposed that on
24.10.2002 at around 07.45 p.m. they were preparing to have their meals
and someone called their father from outside and his father went to the
direction from where he had heard the person calling his name and they
i.e. he, his brother Anshul and sister Shreysi followed their father and saw
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 121
two boys having pistol standing in front of their father and the boy who
was standing behind the other one, uttered “ Kuldeep Maar Goli” and at
this the boy who was standing ahead of other one fired on his father from
his pistol and on being hit by bullets, his father fell down and then the boy
who had fired the shots, uttered “Nirmal Bhag Le Kaam Ho Gaya Hai”.
He has also deposed that they started raising cries and same attracted
some police officials who were patrolling there and they caught one of the
assailants and other one managed to escape on his scooter which was
parked nearby. This witness has also stated that Kuldeep had fired the
shots and identified both the accused namely, Kuldeep Singh and Nirmal
Singh. The eye-witness account of PW-5 Aridaman finds due
corroboration vide testimony of another eye-witness, i.e. PW-3 Anshul
Chhattarpati, who has also identified both the accused Kuldeep Singh and
Nirmal Singh during the course of his deposition. Both PW-3 Anshul
Chhattarpati and PW-5 Aridaman are sons of deceased Ram Chander
Chhattarpati and therefore they are natural witnesses who were present in
their house at that time and they would be the last persons who would
ever allow real culprits to go scot-free by implicating some innocent and
therefore no doubt can be entertained about the identity of the assailants
who caused gunshot injuries on the person of their father. Moreover, the
basic version given by the informant remains the same throughout and
there is nothing on record to make out that any of these eye-witnesses had
any enmity towards accused Kuldeep Singh and Nirmal Singh.
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 122
112. Learned defence counsel has sought to argue that
identification of both these accused is not established beyond doubt as no
test identification parade was ever conducted and dock identification of an
accused after substantial period raises reasonable suspicion about
authenticity of the version and identity given by eye-witness. With due
deference, this court finds no merit in the said argument because none of
the witnesses had any axe to grind in falsely implicating accused Kuldeep
Singh and Nirmal Singh. Moreover, as per the evidence of the witnesses,
it is duly made out that place of occurrence was properly lit and further
the eye-witnesses had enough time to come across the faces of the
assailants during the occurrence, more-so, when one of the assailant was
apprehended at the spot itself immediately after the occurrence when the
assailants were trying to escape. As per the deposition of eye-witnesses,
they raised cries which attracted 2-3 policemen who were patrolling there
and came running to the place of occurrence and apprehended one of the
assailants and this version finds further corroboration vide statements of
PW-16 HC Amarpal and PW-17 HC Dharam Chand i.e. the two police
officials who apprehended one of the assailants. Both PW-16 and PW-17
have stated in unison that on 24.10.2002, they along with Constable
Jagmender were on patrolling duty in the evening time and at about
07.45/08.00 p.m., they were near the police post and heard fire arm shots
and cries of some people and then they ran towards the house of
Chhattarpati, Editor of newspaper “Poora Sach” and some persons were
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 123
saying that those two persons had fired shots and one of them was trying
to start the scooter and in the meanwhile, they apprehended one of the two
persons and the other managed to escape on the scooter. Further these
witnesses have also deposed that the person, who was apprehended by
them, disclosed his name as Kuldeep Singh and further both the witnesses
have also correctly identified accused Kuldeep Singh as the person who
was apprehended.
113. Learned defence counsel has vehemently argued that
investigating agency has not brought on record DDR/roznamcha register
in order to establish movements of police officials including that of PW-
16 HC Amarpal and HC-17 HC Dharam Chand at the relevant time and
therefore version of official witnesses remains doubtful, especially when
no fard jamatalashi/arrest memo/memo intimating grounds of arrest to
near relative of accused Kuldeep Singh has been brought on record. Again
this argument carries no weight simply because none of the police
officials had any animus against accused Kuldeep Singh or accused
Nirmal Singh in any manner. Even otherwise, it is a matter of record that
accused Kuldeep Singh was formally arrested in the morning hours of
25.10.2002& investigational proceedings ensued. In this regard, testimony
of PW-30 DSP Vijay Singh, the then Incharge, Police Post, Khairpur
further lends credence to the prosecution case. PW-30 has deposed about
recording of statement Ex.PW5/A of complainant Aridaman on
24.10.2002 and police proceedings undertaken thereafter including
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 124
registration of FIR Ex.PW30/4, collection of two parcels from Dr. Dale
Singh vide memo Ex.PW5/C, taking into possession blood stained earth
vide memo Ex.PW5/B, preparation of rough site-plan of place of
occurrence as Ex.PW30/7 etc. He has further deposed that thereafter he
reached at Police Post, Khairpur and thereafter Constable Dharam Chand,
Amarpal and Jagmender produced before him accused Kuldeep who was
interrogated and suffered disclosure statement to the effect that he along
with Nirmal Singh reached the premises of Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa
where one follower gave him one .32 bore revolver, 12 live cartridges,
one scooter and one car was also arranged by some follower. He has also
deposed that he arrested accused Kuldeep Singh in this case on
25.10.2002 and accused was subjected to medical examination and police
remand of the accused was obtained by moving an application before the
Magistrate. Therefore, when one of the assailants was apprehended at the
spot and the eye-witnesses had enough time to become familiar with the
faces of the assailants, then any argument regarding any doubt about
identification of the accused becomes inconsequential. Rather no doubt
can be entertained about identification of the accused who had caused
gunshot injuries on the person of the deceased.
114. Learned defence counsel has also vehemently argued that
there is delay of about two hours in lodging the FIR and further delay of
about 15 hours in reaching the copy of FIR to the Ilaqa Magistrate and
thus, possibility of introduction of coloured version after due consultation
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 125
cannot be ruled out and further argued that the FIR is ante-timed and ante-
dated. Again this argument is totally bereft of any merit. It is common
knowledge that family members of an injured would first feel concerned
about the safety of the injured instead of straightway rushing to the police
station to make first information report. As per the version of the eye-
witnesses, their father received 4-5 gunshot injuries at the hands of
assailants and in such circumstances, it would have been natural on the
part of eye-witnesses to make arrangements to take the injured to the
nearby hospital at the earliest and therefore, delay of about two hours in
lodging the FIR under the reported circumstances cannot be held to be
fatal to the prosecution case. It is also a matter of record that first
informant was a young boy at the relevant time and has got recorded his
statement in the most natural manner by giving out facts of the occurrence
concisely and from a bare reading of statement Ex.PW5/A, it is no where
made out that it contains any coloured version. Learned defence counsel
has also sought to create dent in the prosecution case by arguing that as
per the prosecution version, the assailants had chosen night time in the
month of October to attack their target and such assailants would be the
last person to call each others name at the time of the occurrence and
therefore the version given by first informant is apparently is a result of
after thought and confabulations. Again, this court finds no merit in the
said argument simply because the assailants may not be contract killers or
professional criminals and such novice assailants do generally commit
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 126
such mistakes by calling out each-others' names in the heat of passion and
anxiety and therefore no doubt can be entertained about the identification
of the accused and it cannot be concluded that the version given by the
first informant is result of after thought or contains any coloured version.
Moreover it is common knowledge that criminals invariably leave traces
of their criminality at the place of occurrence and calling out each others’
name in the heat of passion is one such instance.
115. As per prosecution case, accused Nirmal Singh was
apprehended on 26.10.2002 on a Naka laid by police near Jagdamba
Paper Mill, Sirsa and one .32 bore revolver along with 5 empties and 7
live cartridges were recovered from his possession, apart from recovery of
other incriminating articles. In this regard, prosecution has examined PW-
16 Amarpal, PW-17 HC Dharam Chand, PW-21 Lekh Raj, PW-30 DSP
Vijay Singh etc. PW-30 DSP Vijay Singh has deposed that on 26.10.2002,
he made inquiries about accused Nirmal Singh and informer informed that
accused Nirmal Singh is likely to visit Dera Sacha Sauda to hand over
revolver, cartridges and car to accused Krishan, Pradhan of Dera Sacha
Sauda and on getting this information, he along with SI Budh Singh, SI
Diwan Singh, HC Amar Nath, HC-Joginder and Constables Dharam
Chand, Amarpal and Jagmender and driver Shiv Kumar, besides Lekh Raj
and Roop Kumar, laid a Naka near Jagdamba Paper Mill, Begu Road,
Sirsa and after some time, they saw a white coloured Maruti car coming
from the side of link road and the same was intercepted and the other
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 127
police officials, who were accompanying, informed him that driver (sole
occupant of the car) was the same person who on 24.10.2002 had
managed to flee after the occurrence in this case. Further deposed that
driver of said Maruti car told his name as Nirmal Singh and on search .32
bore revolver was recovered from dub of his pant and 5 empties and 7 live
cartridges rapped in polythene paper were recovered from his pant pocket
and the same were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW21/2 and the
memo was attested by witnesses Lekh Raj, Roop Kumar and SI Budh
Singh. Further stated that Maruti Car bearing No. DL4CC-1053, which
said Nirmal Singh was driving, was checked and from the front seat, a
walkie-talkie set Make Motorola, a mobile phone Make Samsung No.
98154-16121, photocopy of license of Motorola walkie-talkie set and
from the back seat, one khukri, sword, knife, two bunches of keys etc.
were recovered and the same were taken into possession vide recovery
memo Ex.PW21/3. He has also deposed that the recovered articles were
sealed into sealed parcels. The statement of PW-30 DSP Vijay Singh, on
this aspect, finds due corroboration vide statements of PW-21 Lekh Raj,
PW-16 HC Amarpal, PW-17 Dharam Chand.
116. Learned defence counsel has vehemently argued that
prosecution version qua apprehending of accused Nirmal Singh on
26.10.2002 gets contradicted vide document i.e. news item Ex.DA/1 of
“Poora Sach” dated 25.10.2002 and the statement of PW-19 Vishwajeet as
PW-19 Vishwajeet has stated in his cross-examination that news item
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 128
published on 25.10.2002 in “Poora Sach” in respect of the apprehension
of the assailants was published correctly and that portion of news item
Ex.DA/1 of “Poora Sach” dated 25.10.2002 from A to A1 is correct and
further stated that he had gone to police station on 25.10.2002 at P.S. City,
Sirsa to collect the news and he had published the news on 25.10.2002
after verifying the same from the police officials. After giving thoughtful
consideration to the arguments advanced, this court finds no merit in the
same. First of all, it is worth noticing that even though PW-19 Vishwajeet
has reported the news item Ex.DA/1 on the information of police officials
and stated that police officials had informed him and other media people
about the recovery of revolver, mobile phone etc., but at the same time he
has stated that the same were not shown to them. Still further the
concerned police officials i.e. PW-30 DSP Vijay Singh, PW-16 HC
Amarpal, PW-17 Dharam Chand have entered in the witness box and duly
deposed that accused Nirmal Singh was apprehended at a Naka on
26.10.2002 in the presence of these police officials and some independent
witnesses. Even otherwise, in case Luxmi Raj Shetty & Another Vs State
of T.N, AIR 1988 SC 1274, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that court
cannot take judicial notice of the facts stated in the news item, being in
the nature of hear-say secondary evidence, unless proved by evidence
aliunde and the newspaper is not one of the documents referred to in
Section 78 (2) of the Indian Evidence Act by which an allegation of
fact can be proved and therefore newspaper report cannot be
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 129
treated as proof of the fact reported and it is inadmissible in evidence in
the absence of the maker of the statement appearing in court and deposing
to have perceived the fact reported. Thus, in the light of laid down, oral
substance as disclosed by PW-19 Vishwajeet as reported in the Edition
dated 25.10.2002 of “Poora Sach” about the arrest/recovery of weapon of
offence, cannot be held to have caused damage to the consistent
prosecution version on this aspect.
117. Further prosecution version qua culpability of accused
Kuldeep Singh and Nirmal Singh in causing gunshot injuries to Ram
Chander Chhattarpati further gets strengthened vide scientific evidence in
the shape of FSL reports Ex.PW28/1 and Ex.PW27/A. As per the
prosecution evidence coming on record, one parcel containing a bullet
(found entangled in the clothes of injured) and another parcel containing
cloth of the injured were handed over by PW-6 Dr. Dale Singh to PW-30
Vijay Singh i.e. the then Incharge, Police Post Khairpur and both the
parcels were affixed with seal of mortuary. Further PW-10 Dr. Chitranjan
Behera, who conducted postmortem examination of the deceased, has also
deposed about recovery of bullet from the body of the deceased and
handing over the recovered bullet and blood in gauge in sealed parcels to
the police. Further PW-12 SI Devender has further deposed that on
22.11.2002 he took dead body of Ram Chander Chhattarpati from Apollo
Hospital to AIIMS mortuary in an ambulance and moved an application
Ex.PW10/A for postmortem examination and after postmortem
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 130
examination the doctor handed over dead body to him and also handed
over one sealed container containing one bullet lead and one envelope
containing blood gauge and one sample seal of AIIMS, which he handed
over to Inspector Jaipal of Haryana Police vide memo Ex.PW12/J. Further
PW-34 Jaipal Singh, DSP (retired) has corroborated the statement of PW-
12 SI Devender on this aspect and stated that sealed parcel and sealed
envelope were duly sealed with the seal of department of forensic
medicine, AIIMS, New Delhi and that he deposited the case property with
MHC at Sirsa on the same day. Likewise, PW-30 DSP Vijay Singh has
also stated that Dr. Dale Singh handed over to him two parcels i.e. one
parcel containing clothes i.e. blood stained pant, shirt, one belt of the
injured and the other parcel containing one bottle containing pallets, in
connection with this case and the above said case property was taken into
possession vide memo Ex.PW5/C and that sample seal was also handed
over to him. He has also deposed that he went to the place of incident and
inspected the same and took into possession blood stained earth, which
was put in plastic container and parcel was prepared and sealed with seal
impression “VS” and further deposed that he had deposited the case
property with the MHC. Further PW-22 ASI Sombir Singh, who was
posted as Malkhana Mohrar at P.S. City during the relevant time, has
deposed about the factum of depositing one sealed parcel containing
blood stained earth having seal impression “VS”, one sealed parcel
containing clothes of Ram Chander Chhattarpati bearing seal of doctor,
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 131
one sealed parcel containing lead of bullet sealed with seal of doctor, by
Vijay Singh, SI, Incharge, PP Khairpur on 25.10.2002. He has also
deposed that on 26.10.2002, Vijay Singh, SI also deposited in the
Malkhana one sealed parcel containing one .32 bore revolver, one sealed
parcel containing 5 empties and 7 live cartridges of .32 bore. He has
further deposed that on 22.11.2002, Inspector Jaipal Singh deposited with
him one sealed parcel containing lead of the bullet and another sealed
envelope containing blood in gauge piece. He has further deposed that on
11.11.2002, he had sent the five sealed parcels along with sample seals,
which were deposited by SI Vijay Singh, to the office of Director, FSL,
Madhuban through HC-Ram Niwas and HC-Ram Niwas, after depositing
the case property with FSL, handed over the receipt thereof. He has
further stated that on 02.12.2002, he had sent the sealed parcels, which
were deposited by Inspector Jaipal Singh, along with sample seal to FSL,
Madhuban through Constable Hawa Singh, who after depositing the case
property with FSL, handed over the receipt to him. He has also stated that
during the period case property remained with him, he did not allow
anybody to tamper with the same. This statement of PW-22 ASI Sombir
finds corroboration vide statements of PW-26 HC Hawa Singh and PW-33
ASI Ram Niwas who have duly made statements regarding depositing of
case property in the office of Director, FSL, Madhuban in intact condition
after taking the same from MHC Sombir Singh on 02.12.2002 and
11.11.2002, respectively and both these witnesses have also stated that
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 132
during the period parcels remained in their possession, they kept the same
intact and did not tamper or allowed anybody to tamper the parcels.
Further PW-27 Dr. K.P.S. Kushwaha, the then Assistant Director,
Serology, FSL, Madhuban has brought on record two reports i.e.
Ex.PW27/A and Ex.PW27/B regarding the examination of articles of 4
sealed parcels containing blood stained earth, shirt/pant, one bullet, one
gauge piece and stated that based on examination, it was found that blood
was detected on blood stained earth, shirt was stained with blood stains,
gauge piece was stained with blood stains etc. and further stated that on
serological analysis, the blood detected on Ex.1 blood stained earth, Ex.2a
shirt, Ex.2b pant and Ex.7 gauge piece was found to be of human origin.
Further, PW-28 L.S. Yadav, Assistant Director, Ballistics, FSL, Madhuban
has deposed that 5 sealed parcels were received in the laboratory on
11.11.2002 through HC-Ram Niwas and 2 more parcels were received in
the laboratory on 02.12.2002 through Constable Hawa Singh and the
parcels were marked as (I) to (VII) and the seals on the parcels were intact
and tallied with the sample seals as forwarded by forwarding authority. He
has further given description of contents of sealed parcels and stated that
on laboratory examination, it was found that products of combustion of
smokeless powder were detected from the barrel of .32 bore revolver
marked W/1 and test firing were done from revolver W/1 and its firing
mechanism was found in working order. This witness has brought on
record his report dated 28.04.2003 as Ex.PW28/A. As per the findings
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 133
recorded in the report and also deposed to by this witness, it has been
reported that .32 bore revolver marked W/1 is a fire arm as defined in the
Arms Act, 1959 and its firing mechanism was found in working order.
Further opined that five .32 bore revolver fired cartridge cases marked as
C/1 to C/5 by the laboratory (recovered from the possession of accused
Nirmal Singh), one .32 bore fired bullet marked as BC/2 in the laboratory
(stated to be recovered during preliminary examination of the injured at
Civil Hospital, Sirsa) and one .32 bore fired bullet marked as BC/1 in
laboratory (stated to have been taken out from the body of deceased Ram
Chander Chhattarpati) are opined to have been fired from .32 bore
revolver marked W/1 and not from any other fire arm even of the same
make and caliber/bore because every fire arm has got its own individual
characteristic marks. It has also been opined that clothes of the injured
contained in parcel No. 2 were examined to detect firm arm discharge
residue and lead was detected in the margins of the holes on shirt and pant
and the holes on shirt and pant have been caused by bullet projectiles.
118. Thus, from the above evidence on record, it is duly made out
that .32 bore revolver and 5 fired cartridges were recovered from the
possession of accused Nirmal Singh. Further it is also made out that one
bullet was recovered from the clothes of the injured during his initial
examination at Civil Hospital, Sirsa on 24.10.2002 and one bullet was
recovered from the body of the deceased Ram Chander Chhattarpati
during postmortem examination on 22.11.2002 and both the bullets
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 134
including the one recovered from the body of the deceased is opined to
have been fired from the .32 bore revolver recovered from the possession
of accused Nirmal Singh when he was apprehended on 26.10.2002.
Therefore, when one of the assailants, namely, Kuldeep Singh was
apprehended at the spot immediately after the occurrence of firing
gunshots at Ram Chander Chhattarpati on 24.10.2002 and further
recovery of one .32 bore revolver from another accused Nirmal Singh on
26.10.2002 and use of said revolver in causing gunshot injuries to
deceased Ram Chander Chhattarpati duly make out that both accused,
namely, Kuldeep Singh and Nirmal Singh were the assailants who caused
gunshot injuries to Ram Chander Chhattarpati on 24.10.2002, which
proved fatal and consequently injured Ram Chander Chhattarpati expired
on 21.11.2002 on account of gunshot injuries caused by these assailants.
Moreover, both the assailants have also been identified by eye-witnesses
and therefore no doubt can be entertained about involvement of these two
accused in causing murder of Ram Chander Chhattarpati with gunshot
injuries.
119. Learned defence counsel has argued that recoveries of
revolver and bullets are doubtful and that there is delay in sending the
samples to the concerned laboratory, which creates suspicion about the
prosecution case. It is also argued that there are material discrepancies
with regard to affixation of seals on the parcels, which in turn make out a
case of missing link in the chain and accordingly argued that no reliance
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 135
can be placed on FSL reports, especially in view of doubtful recoveries of
revolver and bullets and discrepancies of seals on the sealed parcels.
Again, this court finds no merit in the said arguments. At the cost of
repetition, accused Nirmal Singh was apprehended on 26.10.2002 and one
.32 bore revolver along with 5 empties and 7 live cartridges were
recovered from his possession and the recovered incriminating articles
were turned into sealed parcels as has duly come out in the testimony of
concerned witnesses i.e. PW-30, PW-21, PW-17, PW-16 etc. Further it is
also a matter of record that all such recoveries have been effected from
accused Nirmal Singh in the presence of independent witnesses including
PW-21 Lekh Raj. Further it is also made out from the statement of PW-28
L.S. Yadav that the seals on parcels, i.e. 7 sealed parcels which were
received in the laboratory, were found intact and tallied with seals as per
forwarding authority when the parcels were received in the laboratory and
moreover, PW-22 ASI Sombir Malkhana Mohrar and other relevant
witnesses have deposed that sealed parcels remained intact during the
period the parcels remained in their custody. The discrepancy pointed out
that PW-22 ASI Sombir Singh has stated that sealed parcel containing .32
bore revolver and sealed parcel containing 5 empties and 7 live cartridges
bore seal impression “VS”, but FSL report reflects that these two parcels
were having seal impression of “BS”. However on a closer scrutiny of
documents, it is duly made out that both these sealed parcels were sealed
with seal impression “BS” and in this regard, PW-30 DSP Vijay Singh has
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 136
deposed that recovered revolver and cartridges were turned into sealed
parcels and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW21/2 and parcel was
sealed with seal impression “BS”. Further recovery memo Ex.PW21/2
duly reflects that sealed parcels were duly sealed with seal impression
“BS” and therefore documentary evidence coupled with oral evidence of
concerned witnesses make out that these two parcels were affixed with
seal of “BS” and the oral substance of PW-22 ASI Sombir Singh in this
regard, which is based on memory, cannot be treated to be causing any
dent in the prosecution case. Likewise, seals on the parcels containing
bullet recovered from the body of deceased and blood gauge were also
found to be intact and mere mention of seal as that of ‘doctor’ or that of
‘AIIMS, New Delhi’ or ‘department of forensic medicine AIIMS,’ is only
on account of way of giving description by the witnesses and the same
does not create any dent in the prosecution case.
120. Now, the question arises as to what was the motive of
accused Nirmal Singh and Kuldeep Singh to commit murder of Ram
Chander Chhattarpati. As already noticed, death of deceased Ram
Chander Chhattarpati has been caused by gunshot injuries and the .32
bore revolver is established to have been used in causing gunshot injuries
to the deceased and the weapon of offence i.e. .32 bore revolver, which
was recovered from accused Nirmal Singh, has been found to be
belonging to Krishan Lal, Prabandhak of Dera Sacha Sauda. In this
regard, prosecution has examined PW-14 Jagjit Singh, Arms Licensing
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 137
Clerk who had brought the summoned record and deposed that as per the
license issuing register, at entry No. 908 dated 24.02.21987, an arms
license No. 908 for non prohibited bore i.e. .32 bore revolver was issued
in the name of Krishan Lal son of Bhagwan Dass, resident of Dera Sacha
Sauda, Kalyan Nagar, Sirsa and the license was issued by the then SDM,
Sirsa. Further as per record, purchase period for the purchase of revolver
was 26.12.2001 which was extended upto 26.08.2002 by the then SDM
and accordingly, PW-14 has brought on record photocopies of the entries
in the relevant pages on record as Ex.PW14/A to Ex.PW14/B. Further Ran
Singh, Assistant, PLA branch, office of District Magistrate, Sirsa, who
also brought the relevant record, has stated that as per Arms license
register issued by SDM, Sirsa at entry No. 436 , license No. 908-II has
been entered in the name of Krishan Lal son of Bhagwan Dass, resident of
Dera Saucha Sauda for NPB revolver and further stated that as per record,
revolver No. 13751-FG is entered in his name and as per the seal of
District Magistrate, .32 revolver No. 13751 has been shown to have been
purchased from Field Gun Factory, Kanpur and the entry is signed by D.
Suresh, the then DM, Sirsa and this witness has accordingly brought on
record true attested copy of relevant page of register as Ex.PW15/A. This
witness has also stated that original arms license in the name of Krishan
Lal also contains the entry about the extension of period given to the
license holder for the purchase of the revolver and also the entry with
regard to purchase of .32 bore revolver No. FG-13751 by the license
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 138
holder from Field Gun Factory, Kanpur vide bill No. 2224 dated
28.06.2002 and the license has been brought on record as Ex.PW15/C and
the license also contains the photograph of license holder under the seal of
SDM, Sirsa. Thus, it is duly made out that weapon of offence, i.e. .32 bore
revolver, belongs to accused Krishan Lal. It is no where case of accused
Krishan Lal that his licensed weapon was lost or stolen at any point of
time prior to the occurrence and further accused Krishan Lal has not given
any plausible explaination as to how his licensed weapon came into
possession of the assailants who caused death of Ram Chander
Chhattarpati with said licensed weapon in his name. Even though defence
has examined DW-4- Nachhatar Pal in order to make out that some police
officials had taken licensed revolver of Krishan Lal on 25.10.2002 from
the house of Krishan Lal in his presence, however testimony of this
witness seems to be clearly an after thought. First of all, manner of events
deposed to by this witness apparently make out improbable and unnatural
story because no Arms license holder would handover his licensed
weapon to any police official without any plausible reason. Secondly,
Krishan Lal was Manager of Dera Sacha Sauda and was admittedly an
aware citizen and could not have submitted to any illegal demand of any
police official to hand-over his licensed revolver without any cause. Still
further, DW-4 in his cross-examination has stated that he had not moved
any application in favour of Krishan Lal that police had taken revolver
etc. on 25.10.2002. Not only this, DW-4 has stated that at the relevant
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 139
time, except himself, Kishan Lal and police officer, no one from public
and no one from the family of Krishan Lal was present, however, Krishan
Lal in his examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C. has pleaded that on 25.10.2002 at
around 07.00 A.M., SI Vijay Singh along with other police officials came
to his house and asked for his licensed revolver as the same has been
used in the murder of Ram Chander Chhattarpati and he asked him to give
receipt to take the same, upon which the said police official threatened
and thrashed him before his family members and neighbours and
therefore, this much contradiction apparently make out that version given
by DW-4 is totally false and does not inspire confidence. Therefore, in the
absence of any plausible explanation regarding transfer of possession of
licensed weapon of accused Krishan Lal to the assailants of the deceased,
the only logical inference will be that accused Krishan Lal is also
involved in the criminal conspiracy to eliminate Ram Chander
Chhattarpati. It is not in much dispute that Krishan Lal had been
Prabandhak/Manager of Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa and even the residence
of this accused is reflected to be Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa, as per the entry
made in his arms license.
121. It has been argued by learned defence counsel that there are
discrepancies between oral evidence and medical evidence by submitting
that complainant Aridaman has not stated as to how many injuries were
caused to his father or as to how many shots hit his father. It is also
pointed out that PW-5 Aridaman, in his cross-examination, has stated that
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 140
his father was shot at from front side, but medical evidence reflects that
injured received four injuries on his person including two on the back of
the chest. After perusing the record and evidence carefully and going
through the ocular as well as medical evidence, it is found that there is not
even slightest contradiction between ocular and medical evidence, rather
ocular evidence and medical evidence corroborate each other. When
father of a witness is being shot at, then it is not expected that such a
witness will count the shots or look at the parts of the body of the injured
receiving gunshots, however such a witness rather would look at the
assailants to see their conduct or to find out the reason of any such
incident. Moreover, in such a scenario, the witness would naturally be in a
state of shock and cannot be expected to recount the seats of the injuries
in a mathematical precision. Nevertheless, both the eye-witnesses i.e. PW-
3 Anshul and PW-5 Aridaman have given consistent version of the
occurrence, which finds due support vide medical evidence. As already
noticed, PW-5 Aridaman has deposed that accused fired 4-5 gunshots at
his father and his father fell down and it is but natural that injured might
have received two of the gunshots on back side when he fell down after
receiving earlier gunshots. Even otherwise, at the cost of repetition, the
bullet recovered from the body of Ram Chander Chhattarpati has been
established to be fired from .32 bore licensed revolver of accused Krishan
Lal, which was recovered by the police from the possession of accused
Nirmal Singh and therefore, the chain of events as made out vide oral,
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 141
medical and forensic evidence cogently make out culpability of accused
Kuldeep Singh, Nirmal Singh and Krishal Lal in committing the crime
beyond reasonable doubt.
122. Even though, as per ocular, forensic and medical evidence,
accused Kuldeep Singh, Nirmal Singh and Krishan Lal are found to be
involved in causing death of deceased Ram Chander Chhattarpati, yet at
the same time, no evidence has come on record regarding any enmity of
accused Kuldeep Singh, Nirmal Singh and Krishan Lal with the family of
Ram Chander Chhattarpati. Therefore, next pertinent question would be
with regard to the motive of these accused to eliminate Ram Chander
Chhattarpati. It is not in dispute that deceased Ram Chander Chhattarpati
used to publish daily eveninger named “Poora Sach” from Sirsa. PW-19
Vishwajeet has brought on record attested copy of certificate of
registration of the newspaper “Poora Sach” with the Registrar of
Newspapers for India as Ex.PW19/B and stated that Ram Chander
Chhattarpati was the editor of this newspaper and used to publish news
regarding all the activities of Sirsa city. He has also deposed that they had
also published news regarding Dera Sacha Sauda and its head and used to
publish news items in newspaper “Poora Sach” regarding CBI enquiry
ordered by the High Court against the Dera and Dera followers used to
threaten Ram Chander Chhattarpati as well as staff of “Poora Sach”
including himself and on account of the news items being published in the
newspaper “Poora Sach”, two persons had fired shots at Ram Chander
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 142
Chhattarpati on 24.10.2002. Further, PW-3 Anshul Chhattarpati has
deposed that his father Ram Chander Chhattarpati was a journalist and
earlier he was a correspondent of “Dainik Hindustan”, however in
February, 2000 his father had started publishing of his own newspapers
under the name and title of “Poora Sach” and his father used to publish
news in his newspaper about the Dera and its activities and this witness
has brought on record various news items published in “Poora Sach” as
Mark PW3/1 to PW3/21. He has also deposed that his father published
news items on 30.05.2002 on the basis of an anonymous letter regarding
the sexual exploitation of the Sadhvis in the Dera and after the publication
of this news item, his father starting receiving threats from Dera people.
He has also stated that his father also wrote a letter Mark PW3/22 to S.P.,
Sirsa requesting him to provide security. He has also stated that on
23.10.2002, his father had published a news item in “Poora Sach” to the
effect that petition of the Dera for not referring the investigation of the
case in respect of the sexual exploitation of the Sadhvis to the CBI, has
been dismissed by the High Court. He has also stated that his father had
also published news item in newspaper “Poora Sach” on 15.07.2002 that
Dera people had attacked followers of Tarksheel Society. Further stated
that his father had also published a news item in newspaper “Poora Sach”
that Dera people had also attacked the office of another newspaper
“Lekha Jokha”, Fatehabad regarding publishing of anonymous letter in
respect of sexual exploitation of Sadhvis at Dera. He has also stated that
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 143
about 15 days prior to the incident, he had visited the office of his father
and employee namely, Narender Parikh had told him that Dera people
could attack his office and when he enquired about this fact from his
father, his father replied that Krishan Lal had come to his office and
threatened him that if publishing of news items against the Dera is not
stopped, then on any day, as per the orders of Maharaj Gurmeet Singh, he
would be lifted. Further, PW-5 Aridaman has also corroborated the
testimony of PW-3 Anshul Chhattarpati regarding publishing of
newspaper “Poora Sach” by his father and stated that his father used to
publish newspaper “Poora Sach” in respect of all social activities and he
also used to publish news in respect of Dera Sacha Sauda and its head. He
has also stated that after publication of news item Mark Ex.PW3/1 dated
30.05.2002, his father started getting threats from the Dera that he would
be killed. He has also stated that State police had not conducted
investigation properly in this case and shielded Dera head and on account
of this, his brother had filed a petition before High Court. Further, PW-21
Lekh Raj has also stated that he was acquainted with Ram Chander
Chhattarpati who was the editor of newspaper “Poora Sach”, a daily
eveninger and that Ram Chander Chhattarpati used to publish news in
newspaper “Poora Sach” about Dera and its head. He has also stated that
after publication of news item in newspaper “Poora Sach“ about an
anonymous letter, Ram Chander Chhattarpati started getting threats from
the Dera. In the light of afore-noted evidence, it is duly made out that
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 144
deceased Ram Chander Chhattarpati used to publish news items
pertaining to activities of Dera Sacha Sauda & its head and had been
receiving threats on account of the same.
123. If afore-noted evidence is seen in the light of fact that accused
Kuldeep Singh, Nirmal Singh and Krishan Lal are found to be involved in
the murder of deceased Ram Chander Chhattarpati and further that these
persons had no enmity towards the family of Ram Chander Chhattarpati,
then involvement of Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh, i.e. head of Dera
Sacha Sauda, in criminal conspiracy to eliminate Ram Chander
Chhattarpati, is apparently made out in the light of circumstantial as well
as oral evidence. As per the prosecution case, deceased Ram Chander
Chhattarpati was murdered in pursuance to criminal conspiracy hatched
by accused Gurmeet Ram Rahim, Krishan Lal, Kuldeep Singh and Nirmal
Singh. Therefore, before adverting to the evidence led by the prosecution,
it would be worthwhile to reproduce certain principles of law which need
to be kept in mind while appreciating evidence in a case pertaining to a
conspiracy trial. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Firozuddin
Basheeruddin Vs. State of Kerala, 2001(7) SCC 596 has held that
regarding admissibility of evidence, loosened standards prevail in a
conspiracy trial. Contrary to the usual rule, in conspiracy prosecutions,
any declaration by one conspirator made in furtherance of a conspiracy
and during its pendency, is admissible against each conspirator and
despite the unreliability of hearsay evidence it is admissible in conspiracy
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 145
prosecutions. In the afore-cited judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
held as under :
“24. Regarding admissibility of evidence, loosened standards
prevail in a conspiracy trial. Contrary to the usual rule, in
conspiracy prosecutions any declaration by one conspirator, made
in furtherance of a conspiracy and during its pendency, is
admissible against each co-conspirator. Despite the unreliability of
hearsay evidence, it is admissible in conspiracy prosecutions.
Explaining this rule, Judge Hand said : "Such declarations are
admitted upon no doctrine of the law of evidence, but of the
substantive law of crime. When men enter into an agreement for an
unlawful end, they become ad hoc agents for one another, and have
made 'a partnership in crime'. What one does pursuant to their
common purpose, all do, and as declarations may be such acts, they
are competent against all. (Van Riper v. United States, 13 F.2d 961,
967 (2nd Cir. 1926)."
124. Further, in the case of State through Superintendent of Police,
CBI/SIT etc. etc. v. Nalini and others etc., 1999(2) RCR(Crl.) 682 (SC)
discussing the principles governing the Law of Conspiracy in the case
under Sections 120-A, 120-B and 302 of Indian Penal Code, the following
principles were summarized, as under:
"Some of the broad principles governing the law of conspiracy
may be summarized though, as the name implies, a summary
cannot be exhaustive of the principles.
1. Under Section 120-A IPC offence of criminal conspiracy is
committed when two or more persons agree to do or cause to be
done an illegal act or legal act by illegal means. When it is a legal
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 146
act by illegal means overt act is necessary. Offence of criminal
conspiracy is an exception to the general law where intent alone
does not constitute crime. It is intention to commit crime and
joining hands with persons having the same intention. Not only the
intention but there has to be agreement to carry out the object of the
intention, which is an offence. The question for consideration is a
case is did all the accused have the intention and did they agree that
the crime be committed. It would not be enough for the offence of
conspiracy when some of the accused merely entertained a wish,
howsoever horrendous it may be, that offence be committed.
2. Acts subsequent to the achieving of the object of conspiracy
may tend to prove that a particular accused was party to the
conspiracy. Once the object of conspiracy has been achieved, any
subsequent act, which may be unlawful, would not make the
accused a part of the conspiracy like giving shelter to an absconder.
3. Conspiracy is hatched in private or in secrecy. It is rarely
possible to establish a conspiracy by direct evidence. Usually, both
the existence of the conspiracy and its objects have to be inferred
from the circumstances and the conduct of the accused.
4. Conspirators may for example, be enrolled in a chain - A
enrolling B, B enrolling C, and so on; and all will be members of a
single conspiracy if they so intend and agree, even though each
member knows only the person who enrolled him and the person
whom he enrolls. There may be a kind of umbrella- spoke
enrollment, where a single person at the center does the enrolling
and all the other members are unknown to each other, though they
know that there are to be other members. These are theories and in
practice it may be difficult to tell which conspiracy in a particular
case falls into which category. It may, however, even overlap. But
then there has to be present mutual interest. Persons may be
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 147
members of single conspiracy even though each is ignorant of the
identity of many others who may have diverse roles to play. It is not
a part of the crime of conspiracy that all the conspirators need to
agree to play the same or an active role.
5. When two or more persons agree to commit the crime of
conspiracy, then regardless of making or considering any plans for
its commission, and despite the fact that no step is taken by such
person to carry out their common purpose, a crime is committed by
each and every one who joins in the agreement. There has thus to
be two conspirators and there may be more than that. To prove the
charge of conspiracy it is not necessary that intended crime was
committed or not. If committed it may further help prosecution to
prove the charge of conspiracy.
6. It is not necessary that all conspirators should agree to the
common purpose at the same time. They may join with other
conspirators at any time before the consummation of the intended
objective, and all are equally responsible. What part each
conspirator is to play may not be known to everyone or the fact as
to when a conspirator joined the conspiracy and when he left.
7. A charge of conspiracy may prejudice the accused because it
forces them into a joint trial and the court may consider the entire
mass of evidence against every accused. Prosecution has to produce
evidence not only to show that each of the accused has knowledge
of the object of conspiracy but also of the agreement. In the charge
of conspiracy the court has to guard itself against the danger of
unfairness to the accused. Introduction of evidence against some
may result in the conviction of all, which is to be avoided. By
means of evidence in conspiracy, which is otherwise inadmissible
in the trial of any other substantive offence prosecution tries to
implicate the accused not only in the conspiracy itself but also in
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 148
the substantive crime of the alleged conspirators. There is always
difficulty in tracing the precise contribution of each member of the
conspiracy but then there has to be cogent and convincing evidence
against each one of the accused charged with the offence of
conspiracy. As observed by Judge Learned Hand "this distinction is
important today when many prosecutors seek to sweep within the
dragnet of conspiracy all those who have been associated in any
degree whatever with the main offenders."
8. As stated above it is the unlawful agreement and not its
accomplishment, which is the gist or essence of the crime of
conspiracy. Offence of criminal conspiracy is complete even though
there is no agreement as to the means by which the purpose is to be
accomplished. It is the unlawful agreement which is the gravamen
of the crime of conspiracy. The unlawful agreement which amounts
to a conspiracy need not be formal or express, but may be inherent
in and inferred from the circumstances, especially declarations, acts
and conduct of the conspirators. The agreement need not be entered
into by all the parties to it at the same time, but may be reached by
successive actions evidencing their joining of the conspiracy.
9. It has been said that a criminal conspiracy is a partnership in
crime, and that there is in each conspiracy a joint or mutual agency
for the prosecution of a common plan. Thus, if two or more persons
enter into a conspiracy, any act done by any of them pursuant to the
agreement is, in contemplation of law, the act of each of them and
they are jointly responsibly therefor. This means that everything
said, written or done by any of the conspirators in execution or
furtherance of the common purpose is deemed to have been said,
done or written by each of them. And this joint responsibility
extends not only to what is done by any of the conspirators
pursuant to the original agreement but also to collateral acts
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 149
incidental to and growing out of the original purpose. A conspirator
is not responsible, however, for acts done by a co-conspirator after
termination of the conspiracy. The joinder of a conspiracy by a new
member does not create a new conspiracy nor does it change the
status of the other conspirators, and the mere fact that conspirators
individually or in groups perform different tasks to a common end
does not split up a conspiracy into several different conspiracies.
10. A man may join a conspiracy by word or by deed. However,
criminal responsibility for a conspiracy requires more than a merely
passive attitude towards an existing conspiracy. One who commits
an overt act with knowledge of the conspiracy is guilty. And one
who tacitly consents to the object of a conspiracy and goes along
with the conspirators, actually standing by while the others put the
conspiracy into effect, is guilty though he intends to take no active
part in the crime."
125. Thus by now it is well settled that since conspiracy is hatched
in private or in secrecy and it is really impossible to establish conspiracy
by direct evidence, so both the existence of the conspiracy and its objects
have usually to be inferred from the circumstances and the conduct of the
accused. Further, proof of a criminal conspiracy by direct evidence is not
easy to get and for this reason Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act was
enacted, which reads :- "10. Things said or done by conspirator in
reference to common design :- Where there is reasonable ground to
believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an
offence or an actionable wrong, anything said, done or written by any one
of such persons in reference to their common intention, after the time
when such intention was first entertained by any one of them, is a relevant
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 150
fact as against each of the persons believed to so conspiring, as well for
the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy as for the purpose
of showing that any such person was a party to it." The basic principle
which underlies Section 10 of the Evidence Act is the theory of agency.
Every conspirator is an agent of his associate in carrying out the object of
the conspiracy. It is necessary that a prima facie case of conspiracy has to
be established for application of Section 10 of the Evidence Act. The
second part of Section 10 permits the use of evidence which otherwise
could not be used against the accused person. It is well settled that act or
action of one of the accused could not be used as evidence against the
other. But an exception has been carved out in Section 10 in case of
conspiracy. The second part operates only when the first part of the
Section is clearly established i.e. there must be reasonable ground to
believe that two or more persons have conspired together in the light of
the language of Section 120-A. It is only then the evidence of action or
statements made by one of the accused could be used as evidence against
the other. (Ref. Kehar Singh and others v.The State (Delhi Admn.),
AIR 1988 Supreme Court 1883).
126. Now coming to the conspiracy angle, no doubt criminal
conspiracy is not easy to be proved. The conspirators invariably
deliberate, plan and act in secrecy over a period of time. The conspiracy
arises and the offence is committed as soon as the agreement is made and
the offence continues to be committed so long as the combination persists
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 151
i.e. until the conspiratorial agreement is terminated by completion of its
performance or by abandonment of frustration. The court has to be
satisfied that there is a reasonable ground to believe the existence of the
conspiracy which is a matter of inference from proved facts and
circumstances. Section 120-A of the Indian Penal Code defines criminal
conspiracy as under:
"When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done,
(1) an illegal act,
(2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement
is designated a criminal conspiracy :
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an of-
fence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides
the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in
pursuance thereof.
Explanation - It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate
object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object."
Further, Section 120B IPC, which prescribes in sub-section (1) the
punishment for criminal conspiracy, provides :
"Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence
punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprison-
ment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express
provision is made in the Code for the punishment of such a conspir-
acy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such of-
fence."
127. So far as the criminal conspiracy is concerned, in this regard,
apart from circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has examined
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 152
PW31/Khatta Singh who is a witness to the conspiracy hatched by the
accused to eliminate Ram Chander Chhatarpati.
128. Hence, in the light of afore-stated principles of law, it is to be
seen as to whether prosecution has successfully discharged onus upon it to
the effect that accused Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh, Krishan Lal,
Kuldeep Singh and Nirmal Singh hatched criminal conspiracy to
eliminate deceased Ram Chander Chhattarpati and got him murdered
through co-accused Kuldeep Singh and Nirmal Singh. There is cogent
evidence on record to make out involvement of accused Kuldeep Singh
and Nirmal Singh in the murder of Ram Chander Chhattarpati and further
involvement of Krishan Lal in the said offence is also made out, as
discussed earlier. It is also a circumstance that weapon of offence, i.e. .32
bore revolver, is licensed weapon of Krishan Lal who had been
Prabandhak/Manager of Dera Sacha Sauda. Not only this, at the time of
apprehending of accused Nirmal Singh, apart from recovery of weapon of
offence and cartridges, a walkie-talkie set with license No. P4220/1-8 was
also recovered from his possession and said walkie-talkie set and license
of said walkie-talkie was in the name of Dera Sacha Sauda. In this regard,
PW-7 Kewal Singh has brought on record renewal slip in respect of
licence No. P4220/1-8 of M/s. Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa vide which the
license was renewed upto March 2003. He has also stated that as per
license renewal register, the license bearing No.P4220/1-8 pertains to
M/s. Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa and it was issued license with two fixed
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 153
stations and six hand held and the same was renewed upto to 31.03.2002
and further renewed upto March 2004 and in this regard, he has brought
on record photocopy of relevant pages of the licence renewal register as
Ex.PW7/B. Since deceased Ram Chander Chhattarpati had been receiving
threats from Dera people on account of publication of some news items
pertaining to the activities of Dera and its head in his newspaper “Poora
Sach” and licensed revolver of Prabandhak of Dera is found to be weapon
of offence used in committing his murder and further other incriminating
articles recovered from the possession of the assailants duly make out
involvement of Dera authorities in the elimination of Ram Chander
Chhattarpati in pursuance to some criminal conspiracy. It is also a matter
of record that Anshul Chhattarpati, i.e. son of Ram Chander Chhattarpati,
approached the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana by filing
criminal miscellaneous petition No. 7931-M of 2003 titled ‘Anshul
Chhattarpati Vs. State of Haryana and Others’ with a grievance that
investigation conducted by Haryana Police in case FIR No. 685 dated
24.10.2002 was unfair, unjust and tainted one and the investigation was
intended to shelter the real accused and that despite specific indication of
motive in the complaint, the investigating agency had neither investigated
nor specified any motive for the commission of crime and after hearing
the parties, the Hon'ble High Court, vide its order dated 10.11.2003,
ordered transfer of investigation of FIR No. 685 of 2002, P.S. City, Sirsa
to the CBI by observing, inter-alia, that the contentions appeared to have
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 154
some merit and apparently all was not well with the entire investigation of
the case and accordingly, CBI took up the investigation and filed
supplementary challan in this matter. Thus, local police obviously did not
conduct the investigation of the crime properly and therefore, the
investigation was handed over to the CBI and it is during the course of
investigation by the CBI that witness, namely, Khatta Singh was
examined and informed the investigating agency about the involvement of
accused Gurmeet Ram Rahim along with other co-accused in the
conspiracy to eliminate Ram Chander Chhattarpati. The witness, namely,
Khatta Singh is a witness to the conspiracy hatched by the accused in
order to eliminate Ram Chander Chhattarpati and said witness has been
examined as PW-31 during the course of trial. If the statement of PW-31
Khatta Singh is considered in the light of afore-discussed circumstantial
evidence coming on record, then it is very well made out that accused
Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim was part of criminal conspiracy to get Ram
Chander Chhattarpati eliminated. It was this accused alone who was
feeling aggrieved by publication of news items in newspaper “Poora
Sach” and none else and accused Kuldeep Singh, Nirmal Singh and
Krishan Lal had no animus against or enmity towards the family of Ram
Chander Chhattarpati. PW-31 Khatta Singh has given eye-witness account
of the conspiracy hatched by accused persons and in the light of other
circumstantial evidence coming on record, the evidence of this witness
cannot lightly be brushed aside.
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 155
129. Learned defence counsel has argued that PW-Khatta Singh is
totally unreliable witness as he is self condemned and convenient witness
as he has changed his version again and again. First of all, it may be noted
that the Hon’ble High Court, while allowing the petition of Khatta Singh’
for recalling him, also observed that it would be open to the trial court to
decide the case on the basis of evidence already on record as well as the
additional evidence. Even though PW-Khatta Singh resiled from his
statement given to the investigating agency while deposing in court in the
year 2012-2013, however it is by now well settled that evidence of a
hostile witness cannot be rejected in toto and the court is not rendered
helpless or handicapped to evaluate such evidence. In such cases, the
court is to scrutinize the testimony of hostile witness with conscious care
and caution and court can rely upon the testimony of the hostile witness if
found to be credit worthy or stands strengthened or corroborated by other
evidence. To this effect, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled Bura
Singh Vs. State of Punjab & others 2011 (1) RCR (Criminal) 122 has
held that it is a misconceived notion that merely because a witness is
declared hostile, his entire evidence should be excluded or rendered
untrustworthy of consideration. However, such evidence remains
admissible in the trial and there is no legal bar to base conviction upon the
testimony of such witness as the court can rely upon the part of testimony
of such witness if that part of the deposition is found to be creditworthy.
To the same effect reliance can also be placed upon Bhagwan Singh
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 156
Versus State of Haryana AIR 1976 SC 202; Satpaul Versus Delhi
Administration AIR 1976 Supreme Court 294; Rabinder Kumar
Dey Versus State of Haryana AIR 1977 SC 170. Again in the case of
Azad Singh and another Versus State of Haryana, Hon'ble Division
Bench has held that principle of ‘falsus in uno falsus in omnibus’ has no
application in India. Meaning thereby that if a witness was found
unreliable at a particular aspect, the remaining portion of his statement
can be relied upon if the same is found to be truthful. It is the duty of the
court to separate grain from chaff. Where chaff can be separated from
grain, it is open to the court to convict the accused notwithstanding the
fact that one of the witnesses has turned hostile. It is equally settled law
that evidence of a hostile witness may not be totally rejected and subject
to closer scrutiny, a portion thereof which is consistent with case of
prosecution or defence, may be accepted. Further, in case Mahender
Singh Versus State of Punjab 2007 (2) RCR (Criminal) 227, Hon'ble
Division Bench has held that in a criminal trial where a prosecution
witness is cross-examined and contradicted with the leave of the court by
the party calling him, his evidence cannot, as a matter of general rule, be
treated as washed off the record altogether. It is for the court of fact to
consider in each case whether as a result of such cross-examination and
contradiction the witness stands discredited or can still be believed in
regard to any part of his testimony. It is a matter of record that this witness
(PW31/Khatta Singh) was declared hostile and with the permission of the
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 157
court, learned SPP for the CBI cross-examined this witness and during
cross-examination, this witness has duly admitted that his statement u/s
164 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the Magistrate and also admitted that he had
appended his signatures on the statement Ex.PW31/B after it was
recorded and that his statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the
Magistrate as per disclosures in his own handwriting and that he had
appended his signatures at point A after its completion and after it was
read over to him and he has admitted the same to be correct. He has
further admitted that he had never moved complaint to the Magistrate or
any authority till date that his statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW31/B was
not factually correct. He has also admitted that learned Magistrate was
putting questions and he gave answers and that at the time of recording of
his statement, no CBI officer was present in the court room. He has also
admitted that Kuldeep Singh and Nirmal Singh were the carpenters in the
Dera. He has also admitted that accused Krishan Lal, besides Inder Sain
and Avtar Singh, was close to Baba Gurmeet Singh. He has also admitted
that he appeared before M. Narayanan, DIG, CBI on 21.06.2007 at
Chandigarh and that his statement was recorded. He has also stated that
there was five members committee of the Dera Sacha Sauda and he was
one of the member of the same. Further, PW-38 Balwinder Kumar,
learned Judicial Magistrate who recorded statement of Khatta Singh u/s
164 Cr.P.C. on 22.06.2007 at Chandigarh, has duly proved that statement
of Khatta Singh u/s 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded by him and that Khatta
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 158
Singh had made the statement on his own and without any kind of
pressure. Even though, statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. is not substantive
evidence but the same can well be used to corroborate the statement of a
witness or to contradict the witness. Reliance in this regard can be placed
upon Ram Kishan Singh Vs. Harmit Kaur and another AIR 1972 SC
468. In the statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., PW-Khatta
Singh has stated that one day prior to occurrence of 24.10.2002, Baba
Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh became angry after reading newspaper
“Poora Sach” and he directed to eliminate Ram Chander Chhattarpati in
his presence and at that time, Krishan Lal went out of the gufa and
brought walkie-talkie set and gave his revolver and walkie-talkie set to
Nirmal Singh and Kuldeep Singh and asked them to eliminate Ram
Chander Chhattarpati as per order of Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim.
130. It is a matter of record that after conviction of accused Ram
Rahim Singh in some other matter, PW-Khatta Singh moved an
application on 16.09.2017, thereby seeking to recall him as he could not
depose properly earlier due to sense of insecurity and on account of threat
of Gurmeet Ram Rahim who had a big clout and political connections, but
the application was dismissed by this court vide order dated 06.01.2018
and thereafter, applicant-witness moved criminal revision petition No. 274
of 2018 before the Hon'ble High Court, and the Hon'ble High Court, vide
order dated 23.04.2018 passed in Criminal Revision No. 274 of 2018 and
the connected revision petition No. 3592 of 2017, allowed the prayer of
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 159
Khatta Singh and accordingly, this witness was recalled to record his
testimony in compliance of the orders passed by Hon'ble High Court. It is
also a matter of record that accused preferred Special Leave Petition
before Hon'ble Supreme Court against the order dated 23.04.2018 passed
by the Hon'ble High Court, but the same was dismissed by Hon'ble
Supreme Court. During the course of further examination of this witness,
he has fully supported the prosecution case and stated that earlier he
resiled from his statement made during investigation and made before
learned Magistrate u/s 164 Cr.P.C. as he was under tremendous pressure
on account of the fact that threats were extended to him. He has also
stated that his parents were the followers of Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa since
the headship of Shah Mastanaji and he used to accompany his parents to
Dera Sacha Sauda and in the year 1970, he had taken the “Naam” of Dera
Sacha Sauda. He has also stated that because he was residing in Kalyan
Nagar which was near to Dera Sacha Sauda and because of the fact that he
used to visit Dera Sacha Sauda every morning and evening, as such he
became close to Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim, who appointed him as driver
on his personal vehicles in which he used to travel. He has further stated
that in May 2002, an anonymous letter was circulated which contained
allegations of sexual exploitation of Sadhvis in Dera Sacha Sauda and
copies of said letter was distributed amongst people and news about the
same was published in various newspapers and accused Gurmeet Singh
then directed Krishan Lal, Dera Manager and others to search the person
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 160
who circulated the said anonymous letter. He has further stated that he
knew Ram Chander Chhattarpati, a journalist of Sirsa who used to
publish a newspaper “Poora Sach” and also published news items about
sexual exploitation of Sadhvis in the Dera, so mentioned in the
anonymous letter. Further stated that on 23.10.2002 at about 06.00 p.m.,
he along with Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim was present in the Gufa which
was being used by him as his residence and at that time, Krishan Lal,
Manager, Nirmal Singh and Kuldeep Singh came there and they had
shown news item to Gurmeet Singh about sexual exploitation of Sadhvis
by Gurmeet Singh and about circulation of anonymous letter so published
in newspaper “Poora Sach” and after going through the news item,
accused became very angry and directed Krishan Lal, Kuldeep Singh and
Nirmal Singh that before Ram Chander Chhattarpati publishes any other
news item about him or Dera, his voice be silenced forever and at that
time, Krishan Lal left the gufa and after some time, returned to the Gufa
along with walkie-talkie set and his own revolver and he handed over the
same to Nirmal Singh and Kuldeep Singh and also directed them to keep
him informed about the action taken by them about the murder of Ram
Chander Chhattarpati on the said walkie-talkie set. Further he has stated
that on the next day i.e. on 24.10.2002, he had gone to Delhi for some
personal work and came to know that Ram Chander Chhattarpati had
been fired at and that Kuldeep Singh had been apprehended by the police
and he was surprised as to how quickly Nirmal Singh and Kuldeep Singh
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 161
have complied with the directions of Gurmeet Singh and Krishan Lal. He
has further deposed about recording of his statement by M. Narayanan,
DIG, CBI on 21.06.2007 and further stated that on 22.06.2007 his
statement was recorded by learned Magistrate in his own hand and
whatever he had stated before learned Magistrate about the accused and
activities of Dera Sacha Sauda, the same was recorded by learned
Magistrate correctly. He has, inter-alia, also deposed about receiving of
threat letter addressed to his son Gurdas Singh and moving of application
before S.P., CBI on 09.01.2009 to provide security to him.
131. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Inder Singh and
another Vs. State (Delhi Administration) AIR 1978 (SC) 1091 has held
that credibility of testimony of witness, oral, circumstantial, depends
considerably on a judicial evaluation in totality, not in isolated scrutiny.
While it is necessary that proof beyond reasonable doubt should be
adduced in criminal cases, it is not necessary that it should be perfect.
Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a guideline, not a fetish and a guilty
man cannot get away with it because truth suffers some infirmity when
projected through human processes. If the evidence of PW-Khatta Singh
is evaluated in its entirety as well as the facts and circumstances of the
case, his testimony deserves acceptance. The factum of witness being
under tremendous pressure on account of threats extended to him can
hardly be brushed aside lightly. The witness was examined during the
course of investigation on 21.06.2007 by recording his statement u/s 161
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 162
C.P.C. and then his statement was also recorded by learned Magistrate on
22.06.2007 u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, as per documentary evidence,
witness received threat letter addressed to his son, which has been brought
on record as Ex.PW31/C/1 and accordingly, the witness moved
application on 09.01.2009 before S.P., CBI and requested to provide
security to him. The statement of the witness on this aspect finds due
corroboration vide testimony of a Senior Police Officer i.e. PW-39
Bhagwan Lal Soni, Addl. D.G.P., who was posted as DIG, CBI at
Chandigarh on 09.01.2009. PW-39 B.L. Soni has deposed that on
09.01.2009 Satpal Singh, SP, SCB, appeared before him in his office
along with Khatta Singh and they brought an application signed by Khatta
Singh and another hand written letter along with the envelope and the S.P.
introduced Khatta Singh to him and told about the letter received by
Khatta Singh regarding threat to his life. He has further stated that he
spoke to Khatta Singh in detail, who was terrified and was worried about
his life and lives of his family members. Further this witness has also
stated that he identified the signatures of S.P. Singh, the then S.P. on
application Ex.PW31/C and Khatta Singh also reiterated the contents of
said letter/application Ex.PW31/C. He has further stated that he wrote a
letter, the copy of which is Ex.PW39/A, to DGP, Punjab for providing
security to Khatta Singh and his family including his son. Thus, in the
light of afore-discussed evidence, it cannot be stated that any explanation
of this witness regarding any threat from Dera is not corroborated by any
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 163
documentary or oral evidence. Learned defence counsel has vehemently
argued that PW-Khatta Singh was having official security in the form of
two gunmen since 2005 till date and that he is also an Arms license holder
and further that he has not given any specific instance and time, date and
place of alleged threat and so the version of this witness regarding any
alleged threat is an after thought. PW-Khatta Singh may be having cover
of two gunmen since 2005, but this fact itself cannot be taken to have
made the witness fearless or to be a factor to relieve him of all fear
psychosis. Given the clout of the Dera and its head, as this witness had
seen and deposed about, it would be unfair to brush aside casually the
threat perception of the witness to come forward to speak against Baba
Gurmeet Ram Rahim, especially when there is credible evidence on
record to the effect that his family had received a letter of threat much
prior to his deposition in the court in the year 2012-2013. A person who
was familiar with the clout of the Dera and its head could not be expected
to risk his life and lives of his family members. Further, it is also made out
vide testimony of PW-4 R.K. Sethi and PW-37 Madan Bansal that as and
when their newspaper “Lekha Jokha”, being published from Fatehabad,
reported about sexual exploitation of Sadhvis in the Dera, as contained in
anonymous letter, followers of Dera Sacha Sauda became violent and
ransacked the office of “Lekha Jokha”. Still further, vide statements of
PW-1 Balwant Singh and PW-2 Raja Ram Handiya, it is also reflected
that Dera followers had searched about the source of anonymous letter
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 164
wherein allegations of sexual exploitation of Sadhvis in the Dera by its
head were levelled and Dera followers also threatened by asking them to
beg pardon and to reveal the source of anonymous letter. This evidence
further makes out that threat perception of PW-Khatta Singh was not
empty one, rather this witness was entertaining reasonable apprehension
to his life and lives of his family members and in such circumstances,
resiling of this witness in the year 2012 on account of threat perception
can well be held to be inspiring confidence.
132. Further learned defence counsel has also attacked the
prosecution case on the ground that name of Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh
does not figure in the initial version, i.e. in the first charge sheet filed by
Haryana police in December, 2002 and in the news items being published
in newspaper “Poora Sach” immediately after the incident etc., which
make out false implication of accused Gurmeet Ram Rahim apparent on
record. It is also pointed out that name of Gurmeet Ram Rahim cropped
up first time only on 10.02.2003 when Anshul Chhattarpati filed criminal
miscellaneous petition in the Hon'ble High Court. It is also argued that
statement of Khatta Singh has also been recorded by the investigating
agency after a period of more than four years of alleged occurrence and
this much delay speaks volumes about credibility of prosecution version.
With due deference, this court finds no merit in the said argument. It is a
matter of record that informant, namely, Aridaman has stated in his
statement Ex.PW5/A that his father was shot at by two assailants and the
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 165
cause of ill-will is that his father used to publish news reports relating to
Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa and on account of the same, he had been
receiving continuous threats to his life from the Dera and that he
suspected that Dera people had got carried out murderous attack. Thus, at
the very first opportunity, complainant has pointed an accusing finger at
Dera people as his father was receiving threats from Dera for publishing
news items pertaining to the activities of Dera and its head. Further the
name of Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh may not have found specific
mention in the FIR, however in a case involving criminal conspiracy,
involvement of all the conspirators can only be brought up by the
investigating agency after a fair and thorough probe. It is no principle of
law that names of persons ultimately found to be involved in any criminal
conspiracy must necessarily be mentioned in the statement of informant,
more-so it is common knowledge that conspiracy is always hatched in
secrecy. Further, it is a matter of record that on account of botched up
investigation by the local police in the instant case, the Hon'ble High
Court had transferred the investigation of this case to the CBI and in such
circumstances, non-mentioning of the name of accused Baba Gurmeet
Ram Rahim Singh in the first charge-sheet or its accompanying
documents filed by local police would be inconsequential and the same
also furnishes a plausible ground for delayed recording of version of
Khatta Singh by the investigating agency i.e. CBI. Likewise, on account
of tainted investigation, there were bound to be slight discrepancies in the
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 166
evidence, however there are no significant omissions or contradictions
and thus, prosecution version inspires confidence and is found to be
trustworthy. Even otherwise, factum of delay on the part of investigating
agency cannot be used to the advantage of the accused. Thus, if the
evidence of PW-31 Khatta Singh is seen in the light of other ocular and
circumstantial evidence coming on record, it is very well made out that
accused Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh was very much part of the
conspiracy to eliminate Ram Chander Chhattarpati and in respect of
conspirators, it was only accused Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh who had
specific motive to get eliminated Ram Chander Chhattarpati.
133. Learned defence counsel has vehemently argued that even
though Khatta Singh claims himself to be very close to Gurmeet Ram
Rahim but he has feigned ignorance about the welfare work undertaken
under the guidance of Gurmeet Ram Rahim and in this regard, reference
has been made to testimony of DW-10 Arun Kumar, DW-13 Mool Chand,
DW-14 Soman Kochucherukkan, DW-15 Umesh Nanda, DW-18 Ajitabh
Sharma etc. who have brought on record various commendation
certificates issued to Dera Sacha Sauda for undertaking welfare activities
and have also deposed about the welfare work done under the patronage
of Gurmeet Ram Rahim and accordingly, argued that this fact further
make out that Khatta Singh is unreliable witness. After giving thoughtful
consideration to said argument, this court is of the considered opinion that
a person may be very close to another person holding some important
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 167
position or heading a big organization like Dera, yet at the same time, it
could not be possible to remember all the activities of such person except
some exceptional events happening in his presence. PW-Khatta Singh has
nowhere categorically denied that Gurmeet Ram Rahim had never
undertaken any welfare activity or that no welfare work was ever
undertaken under his guidance or patronage and merely because he has
feigned ignorance about some specific welfare activities, as put to him by
the defence, same cannot be taken to discredit this witness.
134. It has also been pointed out that certain applications and
revision petition were filed on behalf of Khatta Singh in the courts at
Ambala and the averments of such applications/petition contradict the
version of PW-Khatta Singh regarding alleged threats to him at the behest
of Dera people. Again, this court finds no merit in the same, simply
because PW-31 Khatta Singh, after his recalling, has deposed that he
himself never moved any application before Magistrate nor moved any
revision petition before the court of Sessions Judge, Ambala nor he
appeared before any court at Ambala, rather his signatures had already
been obtained by Dera management on some blank papers and those
papers were later on misused by the Dera people. It is a matter of record
that in the statement/ExPW31/A recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of Khatta Singh,
it is also find mentioned that his signatures were taken on some blank
papers by Dera people. Not only this, PW-46 M. Narayanan, the then
DIG, CBI, in his testimony, has also stated that he recorded detailed
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 168
statement dated 21.06.2007 Ex.PW31/A of Khatta Singh during
investigation and that Khatta Singh told him that he was under threat and
pressure from Dera management and also told him that Dera management
had obtained his signatures on some blank papers and that they may
misuse the same.
135. A feeble attempt has also been made by learned defence
counsel in arguing that an FIR was also registered against Khatta Singh
under Railways Act, which further reflect on the character of this witness.
However, again this argument is without any substance as concerned
witness, i.e. DW-11 Hukam Chand, SI, in his cross-examination, has
admitted that no identity or address of Khatta Singh is mentioned in DDR
Ex.DW11/1 and further stated that he did not know about the
fate/outcome of DDR/FIR No. 39 of 2008.
136. Thus, if the evidence of PW-31 Khatta Singh is seen in the
light of other circumstances coming on record, it is very well made out
that accused Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh was very much part of
criminal conspiracy to get Ram Chander Chhattarpati eliminated. It was
this accused who was feeling aggrieved by publication of news items in
the newspaper “Poora Sach” and none else as accused Nirmal Singh,
Kuldeep Singh or Krishan Lal had no animus towards the family of Ram
Chander Chhattarpati. Even otherwise, the weapon of offence which is
duly established to have been used in causing fatal injuries to the
deceased, belongs to accused Krishan Lal who was Prabandhak of the
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 169
Dera and as per the address reflected in the Arms licence, he used to
reside in the Dera itself. It is settled law that loosened standards prevail in
a conspiracy trial. Moreover, it is not a part of the crime of conspiracy that
all the conspirators need to agree to play the same or an active role. A man
may join a conspiracy by word or by deed. A criminal conspiracy is a
partnership in crime and that there is in each conspiracy, a joint or mutual
agency for the prosecution of a common plan. Thus, in the light of
circumstantial evidence as well as evidence of PW-Khatta Singh, no doubt
can be entertained about involvement of accused Gurmeet Ram Rahim
Singh and Krishan Lal along with accused Kuldeep Singh and Nirmal
Singh in the criminal conspiracy to eliminate Ram Chander Chhattarpati.
137. Even though, learned Special PP for the CBI submitted that
as per the prosecution evidence, there is an additional evidence of
criminal conspiracy involving Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh in the form of
oral dying declaration, as deposed to by PW-25 Deepak. However, on a
closer scrutiny, this court is of the considered opinion that in the absence
of any evidence regarding exact words spoken by the deceased, the same
cannot be taken into consideration. Moreover, it is settled legal
proposition that oral dying declaration is a weak kind of evidence where
the exact words uttered by the deceased are not available. Still further,
there are contradictory versions qua the same as is made out in the cross-
examination of PW-3 Anshul Chhattarpai and PW-25 Deepak and
moreover, PW-25 Deepak has made certain improvements in his
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 170
testimony before this court on this aspect and therefore, the factum and
evidence of oral dying declaration becomes suspicious.
138. Further, prosecution case has also been attacked on the
ground that material witnesses including eye-witnesses are closely related
and interested witnesses and as such, their testimony cannot be believed.
Again, this court finds this argument without any substance. No doubt, the
eye-witnesses i.e. PW-3 Anshul and PW-5 Aridaman are the sons of the
deceased, yet there is not an iota of evidence on record to point out any
animus or enmity of these witnesses towards any of the accused persons.
It is by now well settled that testimony of close relatives cannot be
rejected as partisan and a close relative, who is very natural witness,
cannot be regarded as an interested witness. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Dalbir Kaur and another Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1977 SC 472 has
observed that the term 'interested' postulates that the person concerned
must have some direct interest in seeing that the accused person is
somehow or the other convicted either because he had some animus with
the accused or for some other reason. However it is not the case here
because none of the eye-witnesses had any animus or enmity towards the
accused and moreover, the eye-witnesses, being sons of the deceased,
were natural witnesses present in their house at the time of the occurrence
and moreover, sons of deceased would be the last persons to screen the
real culprit and falsely implicate any innocent person without any strong
motive. Both the eye-witnesses have stood the test of cross-examination
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 171
and their testimony further finds corroboration vide statements of official
witnesses as well as medical and forensic evidence. and therefore any
argument regarding lack of independent corroboration or partisan nature
of these witnesses is liable to be rejected summarily.
139. Learned defence counsel have also attacked the prosecution
case on account of non-examination of material witnesses and
withholding of certain documents and accordingly, argued that adverse
inference be drawn against prosecution on this aspect. Again, this
argument is bereft of any merit as examination of some more witnesses on
the same point would be mere repetition because the prosecution has
examined sufficient number of witnesses to establish chain of events
making out guilt of the accused persons. Two eye-witnesses, namely,
Anshul and Aridaman have been examined by the prosecution and thus,
non-examination of third eye witness, namely, Shreysi cannot be held to
be creating any suspicion in the prosecution case and likewise, other
witnesses have been examined about apprehending of one of the assailants
at the spot, recovery of weapon of offence and other incriminating articles
and also the concerned doctors regarding the medical evidence. Moreover,
Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that no particular number
of witnesses shall in any particular case is required for the proof of any
fact. Thus, it is permissible for a court to record and sustain conviction on
the evidence of solitary eye-witness. The said provision of law enshrines
the maxim 'the evidence has to be weighed and not counted'. Thus, it is
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 172
the quality of the evidence which is to be seen by the court and not the
quantity of the evidence. Reliance in this regard may also be placed upon
Takdir Samsuddin Sheikh Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr., 2011 (4)
RCR (Cr) 840.
140. It is also argued that there are inconsistencies galore in the
statements of the witnesses, which go to the root of the case and create
serious doubt about the entire prosecution case. However on appraisal of
evidence on record, the alleged inconsistencies are found to be minor one
and do not discredit the prosecution case in any manner. Even otherwise,
in the instant case, the occurrence took place on 24.10.2002 and the
witnesses started making statements in the court in the year 2009 onwards
i.e. after a period of about 7 years and this long gap may have some
impact on the memory of the witnesses and in such circumstance, such
minor inconsistencies are bound to occur, however as a matter of fact, all
the material witnesses including eye-witnesses have deposed about the
facts which find corroboration vide other evidence on record and
therefore, it cannot be held that any alleged discrepancies in the
statements of such witnesses are of such magnitude materially affecting
the prosecution case. It is settled law that minor improvements,
embellishments etc., apart from being far yield of human faculties, are
insignificant and ought to be ignored if the evidence of the witnesses is
overwhelming and corroborate each other in material particulars. On
appraisal of statements of prosecution witnesses, the alleged discrepancies
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 173
are not so material which could have been held to have shaken the
foundation of the prosecution case and all these variances can only be
termed as minor discrepancies. In fact such minor discrepancies are bound
to occur even in the statements of the most truthful witnesses who are
deposing before the court after a substantial period of time and moreover
the power of retention and re-production differs from person to person
and prosecution witnesses are not expected to narrate a parrot like version
in the court. Rather such type of minor inconsistencies are hallmark of
truthfulness of statements of prosecution witnesses and no fault can be
found regarding authenticity of the statements of prosecution witnesses on
account of such discrepancies. Moreover, there is not an iota of evidence
on record to suggest any enmity of complainant or CBI officials towards
the accused and in such circumstances, any plea of false implication of the
accused is nothing but an afterthought on the part of the accused.
141. It has also been argued that complainant Aridaman did not
give details of the incident to the police and that he has deposed certain
facts in the examination-in-chief while making statement in the court,
which render his testimony untrustworthy. However, again this argument
is totally devoid of any merit and is liable to be rejected out-rightly.
Complainant Aridaman had made statement Ex.PW5/A to the police and
has broadly described the incident and moreover, it is settled legal
proposition that FIR is not encyclopedia containing all facts relating to the
incident, rather it is information of an offence which sets the law into
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 174
motion. The complainant had made report of the incident within two
hours of the incident and there is nothing on record to suggest any
manipulation with the FIR. Further, it has also been made out that eye-
witnesses including the complainant are natural witnesses and their
statements have found due corroboration vide other evidence on record,
therefore, evidence of such witness cannot be held to be untrustworthy.
142. It has also been argued on behalf of the defence that material
aspects/points of the alleged occurrence have not been reflected in the
rough site plan. Again, there is no substance in this argument simply
because any rough site plan of incident, if not properly prepared by the
investigating agency, cannot be taken to disbelieve the otherwise credible
testimony of witnesses. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prithvi (minor )
Vs. Mam Raj & Others 2005 SCC (Cri) 198 has observed that if there
are omissions to mention some circumstance in the site plan or about the
place where the witnesses were lying or had seen the assailants causing
the incident or running away after the crime, then such lapses/omissions
do not effect the case of the prosecution as non-mentioning of certain
things/particulars in the site plan can only be called faulty investigation
and that faulty investigation could hardly be a ground for rejection of the
testimony of eye-witnesses which had a ring of truth in it.
143. Even though defence has examined DW-7/Sarjit Singh in
order to make out that there was no Nakabandi by the police on
26.10.2002 when Nirmal Singh was apprehended. However, again
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 175
testimony of this witness does not inspire confidence in the light of his
cross-examination. Moreover, accused Nirmal Singh has been
apprehended on 26.10.2002 by a team of police officials in the presence
of independent witnesses and recoveries of incriminating articles have
been effected from him and therefore evidence of DW7 is of no help to
the cause of the accused. Still further, defence has examined DW-
9/Suresh Kumar@ Bittoo in order to make out that Kuldeep Singh was
taken by two police officers on 24.10.2002 at 10.30 p.m. from his office
situated at Hissar road, Sirsa. However, again testimony of this witness is
totally untrustworthy and unreliable, especially when eye-witnesses as
well as police officials have consistently deposed that accused Kuldeep
Singh, i.e. one of the two assailants, had been apprehended immediately
after the occurrence of firing of gunshots at Ram Chander Chhattarpati.
Even otherwise, cross-examination of this witness make out crystal clear
that he is got up witness and has not come up with any credible evidence.
144. Further, from the evidence on record, it is duly proved that
licensed revolver .32 bore is entered in the name of accused Krishan Lal.
Further from the evidence on record, it is also established that the said
revolver along with cartridges was recovered from the possession of
accused Nirmal Singh. Therefore, it comes out that Krishan Lal had
delivered his licensed revolver to the assailants and the same weapon has
been found to be ultimately used in the commission of the crime i.e.
murder of Ram Chander Chhattarpati. Further, PW-24 Krishan Kumar
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 176
Sharma, the then Reader to District Magistrate, Sirsa has proved sanction
order Ex.PW24/A passed by the then District Magistrate, whereby
sanction was accorded to prosecute Nirmal Singh under the Arms Act.
Section 25 (1B) of the Arms Act, inter aila, provides that whoever
acquires, has in his possession or carries any fire arms or ammunition in
contravention of Section 3 is liable to be punished under this provision.
Further Section 29 of the Arms Act makes provision for punishment of
any person whoever delivers any arms or ammunition into the possession
of another person without previously ascertaining that such other person
is entitled by virtue of this Act or any other law for the time being in force
to have, and is not prohibited by this Act or such other law from having,
in his possession the same. Accused Krishan Lal has failed to render any
plausible explanation as to how his licensed weapon came into possession
of assailants. Thus, in the light of evidence on record, culpability of
accused Nirmal Singh for committing offence punishable under 25 of the
Arms Act, 1959 and culpability of accused Krishan Lal for committing
offence punishable u/s 29 of the Arms Act, 1959 is also made out. Even
though, as per prosecution case, it is made out that accused Kuldeep
Singh had fired gunshots at the deceased with the licensed weapon of
accused Krishan Lal and such act of accused Kuldeep Singh makes him
liable to be punished for committing offence punishable under Section 27
of the Arms Act as well, however no charge for the said offence has been
framed against accused Kuldeep Singh and accordingly, Kuldeep Singh
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 177
cannot be held guilty for said offence.
145. Keeping in view the conspiracy angle, duly proved on record,
coupled with strong motive to commit the crime, no doubt can be
entertained about the involvement of accused Gurmeet Ram Rahim,
Krishan Lal, Kuldeep Singh and Nirmal Singh in the commission of crime
i.e. murder of deceased Ram Chander Chhatarpati. The cicumstantial
evidence coming on record finds sufficient corroboration vide statement
of Khatta Singh and vice versa and thus guilt of accused Gurmeet Ram
Rahim and Krishan Lal for commission of offence punishable under
Section 120-B IPC read with Section 302 IPC stands duly established
beyond reasonable doubt.
146. As a corollary to the aforesaid discussion, all the points for
determination are hereby decided in favour of the prosecution and against
the accused as the prosecution/CBI has been successful in establishing
that accused Kuldeep Singh, Nirmal Singh, Krishan Lal and Baba
Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh entered into criminal conspiracy for
committing murder of deceased Ram Chander Chhatarpati and in
pursuance of said criminal conspiracy fire-arm injuries were caused to
Ram Chander Chhatarpati on 24.10.2002 for intentionally casuing his
death by accused Kuldeep Singh and Krishan Lal, as a result of which
injured Ram Chander Chhatarpati expired on 21.11.2002.
147. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is held that prosecution
has successfully brought home guilt to accused Kuldeep Singh and
CBI Vs. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim & Others 178
Nirmal Singh for the commission of offence punishable under Section
302 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC, therefore accused Kuldeep Singh
and Nirmal Singh are held guilty and convicted accordingly. Further
offence punishable under Section120-B IPC read with Section 302 IPC
also stands duly proved beyond reasonable doubt against accused Krishan
Lal @ Kishan Lal and Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh and accordingly
both these accused are held guilty for the said offence and convicted
accordingly. Further prosecution has also succeessfully established its
case against acused Nirmal Singh for the commission of offence
punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. Further prosecution
has also successfully brought home guilt to accused Krishan Lal for the
commission of offence punishable under Section 29 of the Arms Act,
1959 and accordingly both these accused are also held guilty and
convicted thereunder accordingly. Accused be taken into custody. Let
convicts be heard on the quantum of sentence and on the point of leading
evidence, if any, on the quantum of sentence and accordingly matter
stands adjourned to 17.01.2019 for this purpose.
Pronounced in Open Court; (Jagdeep Singh)Dated: 11.01.2019 Special Judge, CBI
Haryana at Panchkula.Rajesh Chawla UID No. HR0125.