The Punjab and Haryana High Court has raised sharp questions about the investigation into the 2002 killing of journalist Ram Chander Chhatrapati, suggesting that investigators may have pressured a key witness into implicating Dera Sacha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh.
A Division Bench led by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Vikram Aggarwal ultimately cleared Ram Rahim of conspiracy charges in the murder of journalist Ram Chander Chhatrapati, overturning the earlier trial court verdict that had sentenced him to life imprisonment.
Court Questions Witness Testimony
Central to the case was Khatta Singh, described as the lone witness who claimed Ram Rahim had ordered the killing. The High Court found his testimony deeply inconsistent, noting that he remained silent for years before suddenly alleging the conspiracy.
The Bench observed that the witness appeared to shift his stand repeatedly, likening his conduct to “a ping-pong ball.” It rejected the claim that fear of the Dera had prevented him from speaking earlier.
Instead, the Court said the circumstances suggested something else: investigators themselves may have pushed the witness to make the accusation while under pressure to wrap up the long-running probe.
According to the judgment, applications filed by the witness had repeatedly alleged coercion by the Central Bureau of Investigation. The Bench described such methods—if true—as deeply troubling for an agency expected to uncover the truth rather than secure convictions at any cost.
Timeline Raised Suspicions
The Court traced the sequence of events surrounding the investigation. In 2007, the High Court had pulled up the CBI for delays in the probe and demanded a clear timeline for completion.
At that stage, investigators assured the Court that the inquiry would soon conclude. Notably, until then, Ram Rahim’s name had not appeared in the case.
But shortly afterward, the statement of Khatta Singh was recorded—almost five years after the murder—introducing for the first time the claim that Ram Rahim had ordered the elimination of the journalist.
During the trial, however, the witness retracted his allegations and accused investigators of forcing him to make them.
Missing Links in the Prosecution Case
The High Court also highlighted gaps in the prosecution’s evidence. A police officer who had recorded Chhatrapati’s statement while he was hospitalized after being shot was never examined in court, even though the judges said his testimony could have been critical.
Equally puzzling, the Bench said, was the absence of medical evidence on whether the injured journalist was fit to give a statement during his treatment.
These omissions, the Court noted, left significant holes in the narrative presented by the prosecution.
Followers Could Have Acted Independently
While acquitting Ram Rahim, the Court observed that public figures with massive followings often attract both devotion and hostility. In such environments, fervent supporters sometimes act on their own impulses, even crossing legal boundaries.
After reviewing the evidence, the judges concluded that three other convicted individuals—whose appeals were rejected earlier—appeared to have carried out the killing independently, without proof of a conspiracy directed by Ram Rahim.
Media Attention Not a Substitute for Proof
The Bench also cautioned against allowing intense media attention to shape judicial outcomes. Courts, it said, must rely strictly on evidence that establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Once serious doubts arise in a criminal trial, the benefit must go to the accused, the judgment reiterated.
Finding that the prosecution had failed to conclusively establish Ram Rahim’s role in the conspiracy, the High Court acquitted him in the case.
