Court Says Conspiracy Against Gurmeet Ram Rahim Not Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt; Conviction Of Shooters And Arms Supplier Maintained
Chandigarh, March 7: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has acquitted Baba Gurmeet Singh alias Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh in the journalist Ram Chander Chhatrapati murder case, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the charge of criminal conspiracy against him beyond reasonable doubt.
However, the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Vikram Aggarwal upheld the conviction and sentence of co-accused Kuldeep Singh alias Kala, Nirmal Singh and Krishan Lal alias Kishan Lal.
The appeals arose from the judgment dated 11.01.2019 and order of sentence dated 17.01.2019 passed by the Special Judge, CBI, Haryana, Panchkula.
Background
Ram Chander Chhatrapati was a journalist who used to publish the evening newspaper Pura Sach from Sirsa. He had published material concerning Dera Sacha Sauda and allegations against its head.
On 24.10.2002, he was shot outside his house in Sirsa. He was initially taken for treatment and later succumbed to his injuries on 21.11.2002 at Apollo Hospital, Delhi.
The FIR was initially registered under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC and provisions of the Arms Act. After the death of Chhatrapati, Section 302 IPC was added. Section 120-B IPC was also added during investigation.
Trial Court Conviction
The CBI Court convicted four persons.
Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh was convicted under Section 120-B IPC read with Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Kuldeep Singh was convicted under Section 302 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Nirmal Singh was convicted under Section 302 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC and also under Section 25 of the Arms Act.
Krishan Lal was convicted under Section 120-B IPC read with Section 302 IPC and under Section 29 of the Arms Act.
During pendency of the appeal, Krishan Lal expired and his legal representatives were permitted to pursue the appeal.
Prosecution Case
The prosecution case was that Chhatrapati was shot by Kuldeep Singh and Nirmal Singh pursuant to a conspiracy allegedly involving Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh.
Krishan Lal, who was alleged to be associated with the Dera, was accused of supplying his licensed .32 bore revolver and other articles used in the crime.
The prosecution relied on eyewitnesses, recovery of weapon, forensic evidence, disclosure statements and the testimony of Khatta Singh, who was projected as a witness to the alleged conspiracy.
Eyewitness Version Accepted Against Kuldeep And Nirmal
The High Court considered the statements of Chhatrapati’s sons, Anshul Chhatrapati and Aridaman, along with the evidence of police personnel who were stated to have reached the spot.
The Court found that the prosecution evidence against Kuldeep Singh and Nirmal Singh was trustworthy.
It rejected the argument that minor discrepancies regarding arrest, delay in special report, non-recording of certain diary entries or alleged defects in investigation were sufficient to demolish the prosecution case.
The Court observed that defective investigation by itself does not necessarily entitle the accused to acquittal if reliable evidence otherwise proves the offence.
Conviction Of Kuldeep Singh And Nirmal Singh Upheld
The High Court held that the role of Kuldeep Singh and Nirmal Singh in the shooting stood proved.
The Court was not persuaded by the defence arguments regarding absence of test identification parade, alleged inconsistencies in witness statements, or alleged weaknesses in forensic handling.
It therefore dismissed the appeals filed by Kuldeep Singh and Nirmal Singh and upheld their conviction and sentence.
Conviction Of Krishan Lal Also Upheld
The High Court also upheld the conviction of Krishan Lal.
The prosecution case against him was that his licensed revolver had been used in the offence and that he had supplied the weapon and other articles.
The Court found no reason to interfere with the conviction recorded by the Trial Court against him. Since he had died during the pendency of appeal, his legal representatives continued the challenge, but the appeal was dismissed.
Court Examines Case Against Gurmeet Ram Rahim Separately
The High Court then separately examined the case against Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh.
The Court noted that the allegation against him was of conspiracy and that the evidence against him was substantially based on the testimony of Khatta Singh.
The Court observed that conspiracy is generally hatched in secrecy and direct evidence may not always be available. However, the prosecution must still prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt.
Khatta Singh’s Testimony Found Unsafe For Conviction
The High Court found serious difficulty in relying upon Khatta Singh’s testimony for convicting Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh.
The Court noted that Khatta Singh’s stand had changed at different stages. He had earlier made allegations, then turned hostile, and later sought to again support the prosecution version.
The Court also noted that before naming Gurmeet Ram Rahim in the present case, Khatta Singh had made allegations that he was being pressurised by the CBI to implicate him.
The High Court found that his statement under Section 164 CrPC could not be treated as substantive evidence. It also held that such statement could not safely corroborate his later testimony in view of his inconsistent stands.
A1 Not Named Initially
The Court also took note of the fact that Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh was not named in the FIR.
The initial version stated that Chhatrapati had been publishing news relating to Dera Sacha Sauda and had been receiving threats from Dera people, but it did not specifically name Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh.
The Court further noted that his name did not surface in the disclosure statements of the co-accused at the initial stage.
According to the High Court, Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh came to be named much later, mainly on the basis of the statement of Khatta Singh.
Conspiracy Not Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt
The High Court held that the guilt of Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh had not been proved.
The Court held that the evidence was insufficient to sustain conviction for conspiracy to murder.
Accordingly, the Court allowed his appeal, set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against him, and acquitted him of the charge framed against him.
Appeals Of Three Co-Accused Dismissed
While allowing the appeal filed by Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh, the High Court dismissed the appeals filed by Kuldeep Singh, Nirmal Singh and Krishan Lal.
The Court upheld the Trial Court’s judgment of conviction and order of sentence against them.
Key Takeaway
The judgment draws an important distinction between proof of the actual commission of murder and proof of criminal conspiracy.
The High Court found the evidence sufficient to uphold the conviction of the assailants and the accused linked with the weapon, but held that the conspiracy charge against Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh could not rest on the inconsistent testimony of one witness without reliable corroboration.
The Court reiterated that a statement under Section 164 CrPC is not substantive evidence and cannot, by itself, prove guilt. In criminal law, especially in a charge of conspiracy to murder, suspicion or motive cannot substitute proof beyond reasonable doubt.