Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Challenging Acquittal Of Ram Rahim Singh In 2002 Murder Case Of Manager Ranjit Singh

The Supreme Court today (September 9) issued notice in a plea challenging the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court acquitting self-styled Godman and Dera Sacha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh and four others sentenced to life imprisonment by a CBI court in the 2002 murder of manager Ranjit Singh.

A bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma was hearing a challenge to the judgment in which as per the chargesheet filed by the CBI, Ranjit Singh was shot dead on July 10, 2002, because Ram Rahim suspected that the deceased was behind the circulation of an anonymous letter, highlighting the cases of sexual exploitation of his female followers.

On May 28, a division bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Lalit Batra of the High Court found the CBI, which took over the probe in November 2023, failed to establish the motive of the crime and rather, the prosecution case was "shrouded in doubts".

The other convicts who have been sentenced to life imprisonment along with Ram Rahim are Avtar Singh, Krishan Lal, Jasbir Singh, and Sabdil Singh. One of the accused, Inder Sain, had died during the trial in 2020.

It may be noted that Ram Rahim is already serving 20 years of sentence for the offence of rape, when he was convicted of the murder of his disciple, Ranjit Singh under Sections 302 (murder) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code. He is also convicted for murdering a journalist Ram Chander Chhatrapati in he was awarded a life sentence which will run after the end of his 20-year term.

Judgment of P&H HC on acquittal 

The High Court acquitted Ram Rahim on the following grounds:

1. Court Rejected Alleged Motive Attributed To Ram Rahim For Murdering Deceased

The Court rejected the CBI's contention that Ranjit Singh had been killed because Ram Rahim was aggrieved by the circulation of an anonymous letter alleging sexual exploitation against of his female followers.

"It appears that no animosity spurred inter se the deceased and accused No.1 nor thereby there was any motive etched in the mind of accused No.1(Ram Rahim), thus for his directing the other co-accused to eliminate the deceased," the Court said.

2. Prosecution Failed To Prove That Deceased Was Given Death Threats

The Court opined that the prosecution has not been able to prove through "cogent evidence" that in June, 2002 the accused persons, at the relevant site as alleged by the CBI, met and threatened the deceased for circulating the alleged letter.

"The prosecution has been unable to efficaciously prove that there was a meeting held on 16.06.2002, whereins, accused No.1 (Gurmeet Ram Rahim) directed the accused concerned, to eliminate the deceased," it added.

3. Material Contradictions In Testimony Of Witnesses

The Court noted that there are material contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses. Perusing the statements of the witnesses the Court found that "resultantly the inevitable conclusion therefroms, is that, the accused concerned, did not visit the house of the deceased on 26.06.2002 and, nor on the said date any threatenings were meted to the deceased by the said accused."

The bench opined that the story that one of the accused went to deceased person's home for threatening him "is a mere invention or concoction", thus for purportedly creating an ill-incriminatory evidence against Ram Rahim.

4. Witness Coerced By CBI

The Court noted that witness Khatta Singh, who testified that the conspiracy to kill the deceased was hatched by Ram Rahim, had stated that CBI has been coercing and compelling him to make a statement against the Dera chief.

"The witness also made a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Sirsa stating that he was threatened by the investigating officer of the CBI, to make a statement against the Dera chief", noted the bench. Therefore, the Court refused to rely on the statements given by him against Ram Rahim.

5. Alleged Weapon Never Used In Crime

Referring to the ballistic report the Court said it can be safely concluded that the alleged weapon was never used in the commission of crime. It found that "The charged weapon of offence was throughout in the armoury and was not available to be used as the relevant weapon of offence, at the crime site for committing the crime."

6. Lapses In CBI Investigation

The Court pointed out several lapses in investigation conducted by the investigating agency:

(a) the car, which was allegedly used in the commission of the crime event was never seized;

(b) Three witnesses in their respective statements stated that all the four assailants were armed with firearm weapons, but none of those weapons became seized by the CBI;

(c) there was no site plan prepared by the CBI of the place where the alleged conspiracy was hatched, on 16.06.2002,

(d) CBI did not collect any evidence about Kashish restaurant where PW-31 had allegedly seen accused Nos.2 to 5 openly celebrating the murder of the deceased, its failing to examine the owners or the workers, who were serving in the said restaurant.

5. Post mortem Report Inconsistent With Testimony Of Eye-Witness

The Court highlighted that as per post mortem report, four metallic pieces of different sizes, and, shapes from the brain tissue and skull cavity was found in the body of Ranjit Singh.

"Further PW-58 in his cross-examination has admitted that three bullets had entered into the deceased's body, but the same were never recovered. Moreover, neither any opinion on the distance of firing has been mentioned nor any blackening around any of the injuries was mentioned in the PMR. Therefore, the PMR is inconsistent with the statement of PW-9, who had stated that the deceased was shot from a close range, as there was no mention of blackening near the injuries," Court said.

"As such, the medical evidence remains unsubstantiated from the ocular version vis-a-vis the crime event as became rendered by the purported eye witnesses. The further sequel thereof, is that, in the instant case the eye witness account is also thereby required to be declared to be thus fonders," the Court added.

6. Polygraph Test Rejected

Polygraph test was conducted upon three accused persons relating to alleged incident when the murder took place, on which the prosecution relied. The Court noted that "the results of the examinations thereof reveals that there was some deceptive answers meted to the relevant queries."

It further highlighted that it is nowhere stated, that the consent of the accused persons were taken before conducting the polygraph test.

Referring to landmark decision of Apex Court's decision in Selvi vs. State of Karnataka, the Court underscored that "the consent of the accused concerned, whether in custody or is outside custody, rather is a sine quo non for the makings of a valid polygraph test upon the accused concerned."

In the light of the above, the Court held that the investigating officers "carried out a tainted and sketchy investigations into the crime event, besides also they collected evidence which is unworthy of credence becoming meted theretos."

While allowing their appeal, the Court said "there is merit in the instant appeals, and, the same are allowed. The impugned verdict, as, drawn, upon/qua the convicts, by the learned trial Judge concerned, is quashed, and, set aside, and, the appellants are acquitted of the charge(s) drawn against them."

(Background from Aiman J. Chishti's report)

Case details: JAGSEER SINGH Versus BABA GURMEET SINGH @ MAHARAJ GURMEET SINGH @ GURMEET RAM RAHIM SINGH AND ORS, Diary No. 33568-2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order