1 IN THE COURT OF JAGDEEP SINGH, SPECIAL JUDGE, CBI, UID ...€¦ · IN THE COURT OF JAGDEEP SINGH, SPECIAL JUDGE, CBI, (HARYANA) AT PANCHKULA. UID NO. : HR0125 Case Type Chi Filing

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


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


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


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


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


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


“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


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


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


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


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


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


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,


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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.


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


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.


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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.


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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;


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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,


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


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


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


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


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


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,


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


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 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


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


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


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


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)


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


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,


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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,


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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,


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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,


medical and forensic evidence cogently make out culpability of accused

Kuldeep Singh, Nirmal Singh and Krishal Lal in committing the crime


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


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


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


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


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

dhtmled12:ACA225

dhtmled12:ACA225

dhtmled12:ACA225

dhtmled12:33669.xml

dhtmled12:33669.xml


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.

Documents

1 IN THE COURT OF JAGDEEP SINGH, SPECIAL JUDGE, CBI, UID ...€¦ · IN THE COURT OF JAGDEEP SINGH, SPECIAL JUDGE, CBI, (HARYANA) AT PANCHKULA. UID NO. : HR0125 Case Type Chi Filing