Punjab-Haryana High Court
Baba Gurmeet Singh @ Maharaj Gurmeet … vs Central Bereau Of Investigation on 7 March, 2026
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Reserved on: 25.09.2025/17.02.2026
Pronounced on: 07.03.2026
Uploaded on:09.03.2026
Whether only operative part of the judgment is
pronounced or the full judgment is pronounced: operative part/full judgment.
[1] CRA-D-240-D-2019
Baba Gurmeet Singh @ Maharaj Gurmeet Singh @
Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh
.....Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation .....Respondent
[2] CRA-D-270-D-2019
Kuldeep Singh @ Kala .....Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation .....Respondent
[3] CRA-D-258-D-2019
Nirmal Singh .....Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation .....Respondent
[4] CRA-D-254-D-2019
Krishan Lal alias Kishan Lal .....Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation .....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL
Argued by: Mr. R. Basant, Senior Advocate (Arguing counsel)
with Mr. Aman Jha, Advocate,
Mr. Amar D. Kamra, Advocate,
Mr. Akshay Sahay, Advocate, and
Mr. Jitender Khurana, Advocate,
1 of 113
::: Downloaded on - 10-03-2026 01:24:34 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [2]
for appellant(s) in CRA-D-240-2019.
Mr. R.S. Rai, Senior Advocate (Arguing counsel)
with Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate,
Mr. Anurag Arora, Advocate,
Ms. Rubina Vermani, Advocate,
Mr. Arjun S. Rai, Advocate,
Ms. Radhika Mehta, Advocate, and
Mr. Farhad Kohli, Advocate,
for the appellant in CRA-D-270-2019.
Mr. Ashwani Kumar Singh, Senior Advocate,
(Arguing counsel) with
Mr. Ashish Anshuman, Advocate,
Mr. Rishi Titu, Advocate and
Mr. Chandan Malav, Advocate,
for the appellant in CRA-D-258-2019.
Mr. Amit Jhanji, Senior Advocate (Arguing counsel)
with Mr. Harish Chhabra, Advocate,
Mr. Mayank Aggarwal, Advocate, and
Mr. Abhishek Sanghi, Advocate,
for the appellant in CRA-D-254-2019.
Mr. R.S. Bains, Senior Advocate (Arguing Counsel)
with Mr. Sarabjot Singh Cheema, Advocate,
Mr. Anmoldeep Singh, Advocate,
Mr. Inderpal Singh Deol, Advocate,
for the complainant.
Mr. Ravi Kamal Gupta, Special Public Prosecutor,
and Mr. Akashdeep Singh, Special Public Prosecutor,
for the respondent - CBI in all cases.
VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J.
The afore-titled appeals arise from a common
judgment of conviction dated 11.01.2019 and order of
sentence dated 17.01.2019 passed by the Court of Special
Judge (CBI), Haryana, Panchkula.
2. Vide the said judgment of conviction dated
11.01.2019 and order of sentence dated 17.01.2019, the
appellants, Baba Gurmeet Singh in CRA-240-D-2019
(hereinafter referred to as `A1′); Kuldeep Singh in CRA-270-
2 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:34 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [3]
D-2019 (hereinafter referred to as `A2′); Nirmal Singh in
CRA-258-D-2019 (hereinafter referred to as `A3′) and
Krishan Lal in CRA-254-D-2019 (hereinafter referred to as
`A4′) [during the pendency of the appeal, A4 expired and
the legal representatives of A4, were permitted to pursue the
appeal]; were convicted and sentenced as under:-
(I) Baba Gurmeet Singh @ Maharaj Gurmeet
Singh @ Gurmeet Ram Rahim SinghSr. Under Sentence Fine Sentence in
No. Section default of
payment of fine
1. 120-B IPC Life Rs.50,000/- Imprisonment
read with Imprisonment for a further
302 IPC period of two
years(II) Kuldeep Singh
Sr. Under Sentence Fine Sentence in
No. Section default of
payment of fine
1. 302 IPC Life Rs.50,000/- Imprisonment
read with Imprisonment for a further
120-B IPC period of two
years(III) Nirmal Singh
Sr. Under Sentence Fine Sentence in
No. Section default of
payment of fine
1. 302 IPC Life Rs.50,000/- Imprisonment
read with Imprisonment for a further
120-B IPC period of two
years
25 of the Rigorous Rs.5000/- Imprisonment
Arms Act imprisonment for a further
for three period of three
years months(IV) Krishan Lal @ Kishan Lal
3 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:34 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [4]
Sr. Under Sentence Fine Sentence in
No. Section default of
payment of fine
1. 120-B IPC Life Rs.50,000/- Imprisonment
read with Imprisonment for a further
302 IPC period of two
years
2. 29 of the Rigorous Rs.5000/- Imprisonment
Arms Act imprisonment for a further
for three period of three
years months
Substantive sentences of A3 and A4 were ordered
to run concurrently, whereas life imprisonment awarded to
A1 was ordered to commence after the expiry of the term
sentence awarded in the earlier case i.e. RC No. 05/2002.
THE CASE
3. The case of the prosecution is that on
24.10.2025, one Ram Chander Chhatrapati, who was a
journalist, was shot dead by A2 and A3 pursuant to a
conspiracy hatched by A1. A4, who was alleged to be the
Prabandhak of Dera Sacha Sauda (hereinafter referred to as
`the Dera’), is alleged to have been part of the conspiracy
and had allegedly supplied his licenced 0.32 bore revolver to
A2 and A3 and a walkie-talkie set stated to be belonging to
the Dera, apart from other articles.
THE INCIDENT
4. On 24.10.2002, the sleepy town of Sirsa
(Haryana), situated on the border of Punjab and Haryana,
was rattled by a murderous attack on a journalist, Ram
4 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:34 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [5]
Chander Chhatrapati, who used to bring out a Daily
Evening Newspaper `Pura Sach’. He was alleged to have
been shot at for publishing articles against A1 alleging
sexual exploitation of Sadhvis by him at the Dera, apart
from other alleged misdeeds. He succumbed to the injuries
on 21.11.2002 at Apollo Hospital, Delhi.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
5. Law was set into motion by complainant-
Aridaman (son of the deceased) vide complaint dated
24.10.2002 (Ex.PW5/A). Pursuant thereto, FIR No.685 of
2002 (Ex.PW30/A) was registered at Police Station City,
Sirsa on 24.10.2002 under Section 307 read with Section
34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short `IPC‘) and
Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter
referred to as `the Arms Act‘). Section 120-B IPC was added
on 25.10.2002. Since Ram Chander Chhatrapati expired on
21.11.2002, Section 302 IPC was added.
6. On 24.10.2002 at about 9.15 P.M., PW30-Vijay
Singh (Incharge, Police Post Khairpur, District Sirsa, at the
relevant time) was present near Hanuman Mandir, Khairpur
(Sirsa), PW5-Aridaman, met him and informed him that his
father Shri Ram Chander Chhatrapati, had been shot at.
His statement Exhibit PW5/A, was recorded. The same was
read over to him and in token of its correctness, he
appended his signatures on the same.
5 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:34 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [6]
7. He stated that on 24.10.2002 at about 7.45 p.m.,
he, his father (Ram Chander Chhatrapati), his elder brother
Anshul and sister Shreyashi, were sitting in their house to
have dinner. In the meantime, from the rear side of their
house, from where the wall was broken from the lane, they
heard a voice calling his father to come out. Upon hearing
the voice, his father went out in the lane. Anshul switched
on the light in the rear portion of the house. Aridaman and
Shreyashi also came out with him. When they came out,
they saw two young boys, having pistols in their hands,
standing there. One of them said `Kuldeep shoot the bullet’
(Kuldeep Goli Maar). On this, A2 opened fire at his father.
His father fell down. Aridaman and others shouted `Bachao-
Bachao’ on which A2 told the other person, `Nirmal run, our
work had been done’ (Nirmal bhag le, kamm ho gaya).
8. Upon this, both persons went to a Scooter parked
nearby. On hearing the commotion, 2-3 policemen, who
were patrolling in the area, came running and apprehended
one of the assailants. The second assailant, however, fled on
the scooter. It was stated by Aridaman that the reason of
grudge was that his father was a journalist and had been
publishing news related to the Dera because of which, he
had been receiving death threats from the Dera people. He
stated that he suspected that the attack on his father had
been got done by the Dera. He further stated that his elder
6 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:34 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [7]
brother, Anshul had taken his father to the hospital at Sirsa
for treatment in the car of his neighbour.
9. On the basis of the statement, FIR Ex.PW30/4
was registered. PW30-DSP Vijay Singh, then received
information from Police Station City, Sirsa that the injured
Ram Chander Chhatrapati had been got admitted in Civil
Hospital, Sirsa and some Investigating Officer be sent to the
hospital. Vijay Singh reached the hospital and moved an
application (Exhibit PW6/E) before the Medical Officer, Civil
Hospital, Sirsa, to seek his opinion as to whether Ram
Chander Chhatrapati was fit to make a statement. On the
said application, Dr. Dale Singh, Medical Officer, Civil
Hospital, Sirsa, made an endorsement (Exhibit PW6/F) that
the patient had been referred to PGMIS, Rohtak for further
management.
INVESTIGATION
10. The Doctor then handed over two parcels to Vijay
Singh, one of which contained the clothes of the injured i.e.
blood stained trousers, shirt and one belt. The other parcel
contained one bottle containing pellets. Both parcels were
duly sealed. Sample Seal was also separately handed over to
Vijay Singh by Dr. Dale Singh and was, accordingly, taken
into possession vide memo Exhibit PW5/C. The memo was
attested by PW5-Aridaman and one ASI Gaje Singh. Copy
7 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:34 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [8]
of the medical examination report (Exhibit PW6/A) of Ram
Chander Chhatrapati was also received by Vijay Singh.
11. Vijay Singh, then reached the place of incident
and after investigation took into possession blood stained
earth, which was put into a plastic container and the same
was sealed with the seal “BS”. Memo Exhibit PW5/B was
prepared in this regard, which was also attested by PW5-
Aridaman and ASI Gaje Singh. The container containing
blood stained earth was also sealed and seal impressions
(Exhibit PW30/5) were put thereon. Site plan Exhibit
PW30/7 was prepared with correct marginal notes.
Statements of witnesses were recorded and the persons
present at the spot, were interrogated.
12. Thereafter, Vijay Singh reached the police post,
Khairpur, where constables Jagminder; Dharam Chand
(PW-17) and Amarpal (PW-16) produced A2 before Vijay
Singh. Upon interrogation, A2 suffered a disclosure
statement (Exhibit PW17/A) that he owned Mobile No.
98121-28721 on which he had received a call from a
follower of the Dera on 24.10.2002, who gave some
information about Ram Chander Chhatrapati. He said that
he did not know the name of the said person, but could
recognize him and then he reached the premises of the
Dera, where the said follower gave him a 0.32 revolver and
12 live cartridges along with one scooter. One car was also
8 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:34 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [9]
arranged by the follower for their return. He stated that he
had kept the mobile concealed at his residence at Faridkot
in a suit case and that he could get the same recovered. His
statement Exhibit PW17/A, was also attested by ASI Gaje
Singh and Constable Dharam Chand. Accordingly, A2 was
formally arrested on 25.10.2002.
13. On 26.10.2002, Vijay Singh went in search of A3.
He along with other Police Officers went to the main gate of
the Dera and from there to the house of Ram Chander
Chhatrapati and made inquiries and a follower informed
him that A3 was likely to visit the Dera to hand over the
revolver, cartridges and car to A4. Upon the receipt of the
said information, Vijay Singh alongwith other Police Officers
and Officials, including PW16-Amarpal and PW17-Dharam
Chand; Lekh Raj and Roop Kumar, laid a Naka (Barricade)
near Jagdambe Paper Mill, Begu Road, Sirsa. After some
time, they saw a white coloured Maruti Car coming from the
side of link road, Rangri. The said car was intercepted. The
sole occupant of the said car, who was driving the car was
interrogated. The other police officials, who were
accompanying Vijay Singh, informed him that the said
person was the same person, who had managed to flee on
24.10.2002 after the occurrence. The driver then disclosed
his name as Nirmal Singh (A3) son of Gurdev Singh,
resident of Green Colony, College Road, Faridkot. Upon his
9 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:34 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [10]
search, a 0.32 revolver; 5 empty and 7 live cartridges,
wrapped in a polythene paper were recovered from him.
They were taken into possession vide memo Exhibit
PW21/2. A parcel was prepared and was sealed with the
impressions `BS’. Rough sketch of the revolver (Exhibit
PW21/1) was prepared. The revolver (Exhibit MO/1) was
converted into a parcel (Exhibit MO/2).
14. Upon checking of the car, Registration Certificate
(RC) and the Driving Licence (DL), in the name of A3 were
recovered from the dashboard and from the front seat i.e.,
the seat of the passenger alongside the seat of the driver, a
walkie-talkie make Motorola and a mobile phone having
connection No. 98154-16121, a photostat copy of the
licence of the Motorola walkie-talkie set (Exhibit MO/C),
were recovered. From the back seat, one khukhri (dagger)
(Exhibit MO/B), one sword; one knife (Exhibit Ex. MO/D),
two bunches of keys (Exhibits MO/F and MO/G); a steal
measuring tape (Exhibit MO/E), were recovered. All the
aforesaid articles were taken into possession vide recovery
memo Exhibit PW21/3. The articles were sealed with the
seal of `VS’. The sword was produced in the Court as
Exhibit MO/A.
15. A3 suffered a disclosure statement Exhibit
PW17/B. It was stated by him that he had taken `Naam’ of
Dera Sacha Sauda and that he was a follower of A1 and
10 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:34 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [11]
often used to come to the Dera for performing sewa. He
stated that A2 was his cousin brother and he had also
taken `Naam’ of Dera Sacha Sauda and that he (A2) also
used to visit the Dera for performing sewa. He further
stated that about 15 days back, the Pradhan of the Dera
(A4) told them that Ram Chander Chhatrapati, editor of the
Pura Sach newspaper publishes material against Dera
“Pitaji” to tarnish his image and publishes unreal stories.
A4 told him that Ram Chander Chhatrapati had to be
finished. Then A2 and A3 agreed with the stand of A4. After
that A4 showed him and A2, the house of Ram Chander
Chhatrapati as also Ram Chander Chhatrapati. On
24.10.2002, A4 asked him on phone that he and A2
should visit the Dera. On this, both of them reached the
Dera where A4 gave them a .32 bore revolver and 12 live
cartridges, one scooter and one dummy pistol. He also
stated that while running away from the spot, A2 handed
over the pistol and cartridges to him. Rough site plan
(Exhibit PW30/9) was prepared. Statements of witnesses
were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. A3 was arrested
and was produced in Court.
16. One SI Ram Chander was deputed by the Senior
Police Officers to go to PGI, Rohtak, to ascertain whether
Ram Chander Chhatrapati was fit to make a statement. He
went to PGI, Rohtak, and moved an application (Exhibit
11 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [12]
PW29/A) in this regard on which opinion Ex. PW29/B was
given by one Dr. J.K. Maheshwari that Ram Chander
Chhatrapati was fit to make a statement. It has come on
record that SI Ram Chander, thereafter, recorded the
statement of Ram Chander Chhatrapati, but it was not
produced on record.
17. On 25.10.2002, on the statement of A2, offence
under Section 120-B IPC was added. Thereafter, A2 was
interrogated on 27.10.2002 and 28.10.2002. Both A2 and
A3 suffered disclosure statements. A2 disclosed (Exhibit
PW25/A) that he had kept his mobile phone having
connection 98121-28721 at Kalyan Nagar, Sirsa and that
he could get the same recovered. Similarly, A3 also suffered
a disclosure statement (Exhibit PW25/B) about having
concealed a toy pistol (Exhibit MO/I) at the house of his
brother Kuldeep Singh, situated at Kalyan Nagar and he
could get the same recovered. He also stated that the
scooter without number plate, which was used by them at
the time of commission of the crime, had been returned to
A4. Pursuant to the disclosure statement, mobile phone
(Exhibit MO/H) was recovered vide memo Exhibit PW25/C
and A3 got recovered the toy pistol vide memo Exhibit
PW25/D.
18. Application Exhibit PW30/11 was moved by Vijay
Singh to the District Magistrate, Sirsa, to ascertain the
12 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [13]
ownership of 0.32 bore revolver. Report Exhibit PW15/B
was received stating that the revolver was owned by A4 and
the address on the licence was of the Dera. Subsequently,
the licence of revolver and Registration Certificate (RC) of
the Scooter were recovered vide Memos Exhibits PW23/C
and PW23/B. On 08.11.2002, the investigation was
transferred from Vijay Singh.
19. Final report was, thereafter, filed against A2, A3
and A4 on 10.12.2002. The case was committed to the
Court of Sessions by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Sirsa, vide order dated 13.10.2003.
20. Being dissatisfied with the investigation having
been conducted by the Haryana Police, CRM-M-7931-2003
was instituted by Anshul Chhatrapati before this Court.
Before that, suo motu cognizance had also been taken by
this Court and CRM-M-26994-2002 had been registered
upon an anonymous complaint having been received in the
Registry of this Court, addressed to the Prime Minister of
India, requesting for an inquiry into sexual exploitation of
hundreds of Sadhvis by A1.
21. The said petitions along with CRM-24874-M-
2003 titled as Pritpal Vs. State of Haryana and others, were
decided by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated
10.11.2003. Investigation of all the FIRs i.e., FIR No. 312 of
2002, Police Station, Sadar, Thanesar; FIR No. 685 of 2002,
13 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [14]
Police Station, Sirsa (the present case) and FIR No. 395 of
2003, Police Station City, Thanesar, was ordered to be
transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation
(hereinafter referred to as `the CBI’). Other directions,
including directions to conclude the investigation as
expeditiously as possible, were also issued to the CBI. The
CBI was also directed to file its reports in all the FIRs,
including supplementary challan(s), wherever necessary
before the Court of competent jurisdiction within a period of
six months, from the date of pronouncement of the order. It
was also observed that both incidents i.e., murder and
sexual exploitation were daring examples of their kinds as
allegations had been made that the said incidents were at
the behest of the DERA. It was observed that it was equally
important and in the interest of the accused persons as also
the Dera that the allegations and insinuations, if not true,
must be put to an end by a Specialist Investigating Agency
i.e., CBI, at the earliest. It was observed that under the
circumstances, it was essential for the Court to issue a
direction to CBI for a time bound investigation, which must
be taken up with utmost priority.
22. On 09.12.2003, investigation of RC10/3 (present
case) was entrusted to PW43-Dr. Armandeep Singh, who at
the relevant time was posted at SCB (CBI), Chandigarh, as a
Deputy Superintendent of Police. The investigation
14 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [15]
remained with PW43 from 09.12.2003 to March, 2007. He,
during the investigation, visited the scene of crime, collected
documents from the local police, examined witnesses and
collected other relevant documents. Inspector M.S. Yadav;
Inspector Devender Singh; Inspector R.C. Dogra, Inspector
R.K. Khajuria, Inspector Anil Chandola and other staff,
assisted him in the investigation. On 26.10.2005, he took
into possession seven editions of `Sacchi Siksha’ from PW3-
Anshul, vide seizure memo Exhibit PW13/C. On
07.07.2005, R.K. Khajuria, seized complaint dated
08.11.2002 (Exhibit PW13/C) given by Sohna Ram, father
of deceased Ram Chander Chhatrapati to Superintendent of
Police, Sirsa, vide seizure memo Exhibit PW13/C.
Thereafter, on 17.08.2005 and 14.05.2007, certain other
articles were seized, the details of which have been given in
the statement of PW43-Dr. Armandeep Singh, and would
not be relevant for the purpose of detailing the facts of the
case.
23. During the course of investigation, polygraph
tests of SI-Ram Chander and Subhash Chander Khatri,
were got conducted from CFSL, New Delhi. Report dated
13.09.2005 (Mark-PW43/K), was received. Upon transfer
of PW43-Dr. Armandeep Singh from SCB (CBI), Chandigarh
to ACB (CBI), Chandigarh, the investigation was transferred
15 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [16]
to PW45-Shri Satish Dagar, the then DSP (SCB) CBI,
Chandigarh.
24. From 2004-2012, PW45-Satish Dagar, remained
posted as DSP and Additional SP in SCB, CBI, Chandigarh
and conducted investigation in the present case. However,
after about a month or so, Shri M. Narayanan, the then
DIG, SCR, Delhi, was made the Chief Investigating Officer
of all three cases related to the Dera and PW45-Satish
Dagar continued to assist him till the filing of the charge
sheets in all three cases.
25. Shri M. Narayanan, who appeared as PW46, took
up investigation of the present case (RC10/3) on
27.04.2007 and remained the Chief Investigating Officer till
the filing of the supplementary challan. During the course
of investigation, he recorded the detailed statements of
Khatta Singh on 21.06.2007 (Exhibit PW31/A). When
Khatta Singh, was asked whether he was willing to make a
statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate,
he stated that there was no threat or pressure from the
Dera Management and that he would think over and
discuss the same with his family friends and would inform
PW46-Shri M. Narayanan. On 22.06.2007, he also told
PW46 that the Dera Management had obtained his
signatures on some blank papers and they might misuse
the same. He also stated that he had never filed any
16 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [17]
application before the Courts at Ambala for recording of his
statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and that he did not
know who had filed the same.
26. On 22.06.2007, Khatta Singh stated that he was
willing to give statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before a
Magistrate. Khatta Singh came to the CBI office,
Chandigarh on 22.06.2007 at about 3.45 p.m. He was
produced before Shri Balwinder Kumar (PW38). Application
(Exhibit PW38/1) was moved for recording the statement of
Khatta Singh. Accordingly, his statement under Section 164
Cr.P.C. (Exhibit PW 31/B) was recorded. Thereafter,
supplementary report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed
on 30.07.2007 against A1 in addition to the accused
already charge- sheeted.
27. All accused were charge-sheeted for commission
of the offence punishable under Section 120-B IPC. Accused
A2 and A3 were also charge-sheeted for commission of the
offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. A1 and A4 were
charge-sheeted for commission of offence punishable under
Section 302/120-B IPC. A3 was also charge-sheeted for
commission of offence punishable under Sections 25 and 27
of the Arms Act. A4 was also charge sheeted for commission
of the offence punishable under Sections 25 and 29 of the
Arms Act. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
17 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [18]
28. The prosecution examined the following 46
witnesses:-
Sr. No. Name of witness(es)
1. PW1-Balwant Singh
2. PW2-Raja Ram Handiaya
3. PW3-Anshul Chatarpati
4. PW4-Raj Kumar Sathi
5. PW5-Aridaman
6. PW6-Dr. Dale Singh
7. PW7-Kewal Singh
8. PW8-Dr. Rajinder Kumar Karwasra
9. PW9-Dr. Parveen Kumar Singh
10. PW10-Dr. Chitranjan Behera
11. PW11-Dr. Sushil Kumar Jain
12. PW12-SI Devender
13. PW13-Retd. SI Dale Singh
14. PW14-Jagjit Singh
15. PW15-Ran Singh
16. PW16-HC Amarpal
17. PW17-HC Dharam Chand
18. PW18-EHC Mohan Lal
19. PW19-Vishwajeet
20. PW20-Dr.Amod Kumar Singh
21. PW21-Lekh Raj
22. PW22-ASI Sombir Singh
23. PW23-Retd. SI Diwan Singh
24. PW24-Krishan Kumar Sharma
25. PW25-Deepak Kumar
26. PW26-HC Hawa Singh
27. PW27-Dr. K.P.S. Kushwaha
28. PW28-L.S. Yadav
29. PW29-Dr. Jayant Kumar Maheshwari
30. P30-DSP Vijay Singh
31. PW31-Khatta Singh
18 of 113
::: Downloaded on - 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [19]
32. PW32-Inspector Sube Singh
33. PW33-ASI Ram Niwas
34. PW34-Retd. DSP Jaipal Singh
35. PW35-SI Ram Singh
36. PW36-Vijay Kumar
37. PW37-Madan Bansal
38. PW38-PCS Balwinder Kumar
39. PW39-Bhagwan Lal Soni
40. PW40-Gurupdesh Bhullar
41. PW41-Amit Sharma
42. PW42-Bhartesh Singh Thakur
43. PW43-SP Dr. Armaandeep Singh
44. PW44-Dr. Asha Srivastava
45. PW45-ASP Satish Dagar
46. PW46-Joint Director M. Narayanan
29. A number of witnesses were given up by either
being unnecessary or having been won over. The details of
the deposition of the witnesses duly find mention in the
judgment of the trial Court and, therefore, the same are not
being repeated for the sake of brevity.
30. After evidence of the prosecution was completed,
statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were
recorded. All the accused claimed to have been falsely
implicated.
31. In defence, the following 21 witnesses were
examined:-
Sr. No. Name of witness(es)
1. DW1-Roshan Lal
19 of 113
::: Downloaded on - 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [20]
2. DW2-Charanjit Singh
3. DW3-Amar Nath
4. DW4-Nachhatar Pal
5. DW5-ASI Sita Ram
6. DW6-SP Shiv Charan
7. DW7-Sarjit Singh
8. DW8-Navdeep Kumar
9. DW9-Suresh Kumar
10. DW10-Arun Kumar
11. DW11-Hukum Chand
12. DW12-Jitender
13. DW13-Mool Chand
14. DW14-Soman Kochucherukkan
15. DW15-Mrs. Umesh Nanda, IAS
(Retd.)
16. DW16-Mrs. Raakhi Jagga
17. DW17-Rajeev Kumar Jain
18. DW18-Ajitabh Sharma
19. DW19-Arvind Jaitely
20. DW20-Ashok Kumar
21. DW21-Dr. Govind Gupta
32. The trial Court convicted and sentenced the
accused in the manner described in the opening part of the
judgment.
33. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction
and order of sentence, the instant appeals have been
preferred.
34. Learned counsel for the parties were heard.
35. Extremely lengthy arguments were addressed by
learned Senior Counsel representing the parties. After
20 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [21]
conclusion of arguments, the appeals were initially reserved
for judgment vide order dated 25.09.2025. However,
subsequently, vide order dated 30.01.2026, the appeals
were fixed for rehearing as certain clarifications were
required on certain facts, which had emerged, while
dictating the judgment. Thereafter, the matter was again
reserved for judgment vide order dated 17.02.2026.
ARGUMENTS (ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS)
36. Arguments on behalf of the appellants were
opened by Shri R.S. Rai, Senior Advocate, who represents
A2-Kuldeep Singh. Thereafter, Shri Ashwani Kumar Singh,
Senior Advocate, addressed arguments on behalf of A3-
Nirmal Singh, followed by Shri Amit Jhanji, Senior
Advocate, who addressed arguments on behalf of A4-
Krishan Lal. Finally, Shri R. Basant, Senior Advocate,
addressed arguments on behalf of A1-Baba Gurmeet Singh.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF A2 (KULDEEP)
37. Shri R.S. Rai, Senior Advocate, representing A2
assailed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
on various grounds viz., i) genesis of the occurrence and
initial version having been suppressed by the prosecution;
ii) arrest of A2 from the spot of the alleged incident not
having been proved; iii) large scale fabrication of various
documents alleged to have been prepared during the course
21 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [22]
of investigation; iv) the place of occurrence not having been
proved; v) highly defective investigation, both by Haryana
Police and the CBI, causing great prejudice to the rights of
the appellants; vi) no test identification parade having been
carried out; viii) improper handling and manipulation of
case property and viii) the entire case being riddled with
improbabilities.
38. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the
murder of Ram Chander Chhatrapati, allegedly took place
on 24.10.2002 at about 7.45 p.m. The first informant was
stated to be the son of the deceased, namely, Aridaman
(PW5), who was 13 years old at the relevant time. It was
submitted that the arrest of A2, who was alleged to have
been arrested from the spot was formally made at 3.00 a.m.
on 25.10.2002. Referring to the FIR (Exhibit PW30/4), it
was submitted that the as per the same, the statement of
Aridaman was recorded at about 9.15 p.m. and, therefore, it
can be taken that A2 had been arrested at 8.00 p.m. It was
submitted that the arrest memo of A2 does not mention any
time of arrest. Further, the alleged version of the
prosecution that A2 was initially kept at the police post
Khaipur, is not supported by any record. It was submitted
that there was no Daily Diary Report as regards the alleged
detention of A2 at the police post Khaipur nor was there any
rapat roznamcha entry.
22 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [23]
39. Submitting further, learned Senior Counsel
argued that the special report reached the Magistrate on
25.10.2002 at 1.00 p.m. and no explanation for the same
was given.
40. It was submitted that despite the fact that Ram
Chander Chhatrapati was fit to give a statement, when he
was initially taken to Civil Hospital, Sirsa, his statement
was not recorded. It was argued that Dr. Jai Prakash
Chaudhary, who had duly interacted with Ram Chander
Chhatrapati and his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.,
was also recorded, was never examined as a witness,
presumably because Ram Chander Chhatrapati, had not
named anyone in his statement. It was also submitted that
as is evident from the record, the Deputy Commissioner and
Superintendent of Police, Sirsa, had also reached the
hospital, but none of them had been examined as a witness
and they were the best persons, who could have given the
initial version as stated by Ram Chander Chhatrapati. In
fact, they were never joined in investigation. It was further
submitted that it is quite strange that FIR was registered on
the basis of the statement of a 13-year old child, whereas
the elder son of Ram Chander Chhatrapati, was with him in
the hospital and his statement could have been recorded
along with the statement of Ram Chander Chhatrapati. It
was further submitted that despite the daughter of Ram
23 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [24]
Chander Chhatrapati, also being at home at the time of
incident, her statement was not recorded nor was she
produced as a witness.
41. It was further submitted that the disclosure
statement of A2 had allegedly been recorded on 25.10.2002
at 1.20 p.m., whereas he is stated to have been arrested at
3.00 a.m. It was submitted that it is incomprehensible as to
how the disclosure statement was recorded before the
arrest.
42. It was further submitted that both witnesses,
PW16-Amarpal and PW17-Dharam Chand, had made
various improvements in their statements and, therefore,
they were unreliable witnesses. It was submitted that both
PW3-Anshul and PW5-Aridaman, had given separate
versions as regards the occurrence and PW5-Aridaman
admitted that the rough site plan had not been prepared at
his instance. It was submitted that both had given different
spots of the alleged apprehension of A2.
43. It was further submitted that one SI-Ram
Chander had also recorded the statement of Ram Chander
Chhatrapati, but the said SI was deliberately not examined.
Reference was made to application Ex.PW29/A and opinion
Ex.PW29/B.
24 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [25]
44. Arguments were also addressed as regards the
place from which Ram Chander Chhatrapati had gone out
of the house and certain inconsistencies were pointed out in
the statements of the relevant witnesses, including PW3-
Anshul and PW5-Aridaman.
45. It was submitted that whereas the categoric
version of the alleged eye witnesses was that all shots were
fired from the front, it was found during the post mortem
examination that there were two bullet injuries at the front
and two at the back.
46. It was further submitted that no test
identification parade was conducted and doc identification
for the first time in Court was not permissible. Reiterating
discrepancies in the ocular and medical evidence, it was
submitted that the post mortem report clearly shows that
there were two injuries on the front and two at the back. He
submitted that during post mortem examination, one bullet
was taken out and one was strangely recovered from the
underwear of the deceased. It was submitted that it is
incomprehensible as to how a bullet could have been
recovered from the underwear. It was further submitted
that bullets recovered did not match with the weapon.
Reference was made to the statement of PW9-Dr. Praveen
Kumar Singh and document Exhibit PW9/13, where it was
stated that there were four foreign articles in the body of the
25 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [26]
deceased. Referring to the recovery memos and the seals on
the parcels, detailed arguments were addressed and it was
submitted that if one closely examines the documents, it
emerges that the bullets and the weapon of offence had not
been tested in the FSL and false reports had been
submitted. It was submitted that when the containers of
bullets were opened before the trial Court, they contained
the seals of AIIMS, meaning thereby that they had never
been opened in FSL. It was also argued that it was
impossible to put signatures on bullets and that the
statement given by PW28-L.S. Yadav in this regard, is,
therefore, false. Reference was made to the statements of
PW33-ASI Ram Niwas, PW27-Dr. K.P.S. Kushwaha and
PW28-L.S. Yadav, PW12- SI Devinder Singh, PW30-DSP
Vijay Singh etc. in this regard.
47. It was also argued that the bullets which had
been recovered, could not have been fired from a 0.32 bore
revolver. It was submitted that it was also very strange that
A2 had allegedly been apprehended without the weapon of
offence and if A2 had fired from the weapon, how the
weapon shifted to other person. It was submitted that no
evidence as regards fingerprints at the revolver alleged to
have been used in the occurrence was led. It was also
submitted that PW16-Amarpal and PW17-Dharam Chand,
did not refer to any eye witness account. In support of his
26 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [27]
contentions, learned Senior Counsel, placed reliance upon
Allarakha Habib Memon and others Vs. State of Gujarat,
2024 SCC OnLine SC 1910; Krishna Reddy and others Vs.
State of Karnataka, 1994(2) Crimes SC 1110; Yudhishtir Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh, (1971)3 SCC 436; Awadhesh and
another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1988 SC 1158;
Satguru Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (1995) AIR SC 2449;
Kailash Gour and others Vs. State of Assam, (2012)2 SCC
34; State of Haryana Vs. Suresh and others, 1996
SCCOnline P&H 400; State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Wasif
Haider and others, 2019(2) SCC 303; Syed Ibrahim Vs.
State of A.P. and others, (2006)10 SCC 601; Manoj Vs. State
of M.P., through P.S. Keolari 2022 SCCOnline (MP) 5134;
Shingara Singh Vs. State of Haryana and another, (2013)12
SCC 758; Dharam Singh Vs. State of U.P., 1962 SCC Online
SC 340; State of Uttarakhand Vs. Darshan Singh, (2020)12
SCC 605; Mathura Yadav @ Mathura Mahato and others
Vs. State of Bihar, (2002)6 SCC 451; Kanan and others Vs.
State of Kerala, (1979)3 SCC 319; Ramesh Vs. State of
Karnataka, (2009)15 SCC 35; Noorahammad & Ors. Vs.
State of Karnataka, (2016)3 SCC 325 and Aslam @ Guddu
Vs. State, Crl. Appeal No.517/1998 decided on 20.04.2015.
48. Summing up, learned Senior Counsel submitted
that the trial Court did not consider the matter from the
correct perspective and did not give detailed findings on the
27 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [28]
aforesaid issues, despite the same having been specifically
raised.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF A3 (NIRMAL SINGH)
49. Shri Ashwani Kumar Singh, learned Senior
Counsel, representing A3 submitted that many of the
arguments advanced by Mr. R.S. Rai, Senior Advocate, on
behalf of A2, were being adopted by him. In addition, he
submitted that A3 was not known to any of the witnesses
and that he was not apprehended at the spot as a result of
which, doc identification would not be sustainable.
50. It was submitted that the incident had taken
place on 24.10.2002 and PW3-Anshul was examined on
08.08.2009, whereas PW5-Aridaman, was examined on
05.03.2010. It was submitted that it is incomprehensible as
to how after so much time, the witnesses could give the
exact details of the incident. It was submitted that under
the circumstances, it stands proved that the said witnesses
were tutored and were not eye witnesses.
51. Learned Senior counsel referred to certain
contradictions in the statements of PW3-Anshul ad PW5-
Aridaman. It was submitted that the story of arrest of A3
and recovery of the weapon from him is in fact, a sham and
only paper work as regards the same was done. Reference
was made to the findings recorded in Paras 116 and 143 of
28 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [29]
the judgment of conviction. It was submitted that the trial
Court wrongly rejected the argument that from the news
item Exhibit DA/1, which had appeared in `Pura Sach’ on
25.10.2002, it had been reported that the assailants had
been arrested. Even the names of the assailants had been
given in the said news item. It was submitted that once
such a news item had appeared on 25.10.2002, it is
incomprehensible as to how A3 was shown to have been
arrested on 26.10.2002 and in case, he had been arrested
on 26.10.2002, how the news item appeared on 25.10.2002.
It was submitted that the trial Court erred in not properly
appreciating and holding that the news item was not
admissible in evidence. It was further submitted that it is
quite strange that on the alleged nakabandi done by the
police on 26.10.2002, no other vehicle was checked and
only one car was checked from which A3 was arrested.
52. Reference was also made to the statements of
PW19-Vishwajit; PW3-Anshul and PW23-Diwan Singh, in
this regard. It was submitted that the news item was duly
admissible in evidence as PW19 had duly stated about the
same and being the Editor, he had verified and then
published the report. It was submitted that this would be a
relevant fact in terms of the provisions of Section 6 of the
Evidence Act.
29 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [30]
53. It was submitted that the trial Court had
observed that since the recovery of the revolver had been
made in the presence of independent witnesses, it could not
be doubted. Reference was made to the recovery memo of
the revolver, wherein three witnesses i.e., PW21-Lekh Raj;
ASI Budh Singh and one Roop Kumar, were stated to have
witnessed the said recovery. Roop Kumar, who was the
nephew of the victim, was not examined. ASI Budh Singh,
could not have been said to be independent. As regards
PW21-Lekh Raj, his statement was recorded, but the said
statement makes it clear that he was not an independent
witness.
54. It was submitted that it was highly doubtful as to
whether PW3-Anshul and PW5-Aridaman, had actually
witnessed the occurrence and from the evidence, it comes
out that they were not eye witnesses and actually it was a
blind murder. Detailed reference was made to the
statements of both witnesses and contradictions were
pointed out in the same. Reference was also made to the
map (Exhibit PW18/A). It was submitted that the moment,
a doubt is created in the case of the prosecution, the benefit
of the same has to go to the accused. It was submitted that
record had been fabricated during the course of
investigation with impunity.
30 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [31]
55. Concluding the arguments, it was submitted that
the original version of the incident had been suppressed;
the FIR is barred by the provisions of Section 162 Cr.P.C.;
the arrest of A3 and recovery of revolver etc., from him did
not stand proved and all documents were prepared while
sitting in the office; the forensic evidence was shaky; no test
identification parade had been conducted and that the
prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case against
the accused. It was also submitted that the trial Court did
not consider the matter from the correct perspective and
recorded erroneous findings, while accepting the version of
the prosecution.
56. In support of his contentions, learned Senior
Counsel relied upon Allarakha Habib Menon and Others Vs.
State of Gujarat, (2024)9 SCC 546; Virendra Vs. State of
M.P. (SC), 2002 SCC Online SC 857; Laxmi Raj Shetty &
another Vs. State of T.N. (SC), (1988)3 SCC 319; Quamarul
Islam Vs. S.K. Kanta & Others, 1994 Supp(3) SCC 5;
Munshi Prasad Vs. State of Bihar, (2002)1 SCC 351;
Thammaraya & Another Vs. State of Karnataka, (2025)3
SCC 590; Ramesh Vs. State of Karnataka, (2009)15 SCC 35;
Noorahammad & Others Vs. State of Karnataka, (2016)3
SCC 325; Mohanlal Gangaram Gehani Vs. State of
Maharashtra, (1982)1 SCC 700; Kali Ram Vs. State of H.P.,
(1973) 2 SCC 808; Meharaj Singh (L/Nk) Vs. State of U.P.,
31 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [32]
(1994) 5 SCC 188; Mani Ram & Others Vs. State of U.P.,
1994 SCC (Criminal) 1242; Ram Narain Singh Vs. State of
Punjab, (1975)4 SCC 497; Takhaji Hiraji Vs. Thakore
Kubersing Chamansing and others, (2001)6 SCC 145;
Tomaso Bruno and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh,
(2015)7 SCC 178 and Ramesh Chandra Agrawal Vs.
Regency Hospital Limited and others, (2009)9 SCC 709.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF A4 (KRISHAN LAL).
57. Shri Amit Jhanji, learned Senior Counsel,
addressed arguments on behalf of A4. It was submitted that
he was never named in the FIR. He submitted that he was
not present at the place of occurrence. Even as per the case
of prosecution, A2-Kuldeep Singh was arrested on
25.10.2002, but he did not name A4. It was submitted that
name of A4 appeared for the first time in the disclosure
statement of A3. It was submitted that call detail records of
A2 had allegedly been obtained and it found mentioned in
the report submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.C., but the
said call details were never attached with the same.
58. It was submitted that A4 had allegedly visited the
office of Ram Chander Chhatrapati 15 days prior to the
incident and had threatened him to stop publishing news
against the Dera. It was allegedly so disclosed by one
Narinder Parekh to PW3-Anshul. However, no such
32 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [33]
allegations appeared in the FIR; the supplementary
statement or any other prior statement of PW3-Anshul,
before the investigating agency. No such version was there
in the petition filed before the High Court nor was it
published in the newspaper `Pura Sach’. It was submitted
that had such threats been extended , it would have been
reported in the newspaper(s) as all such other threats and
attacks were regularly being reported. It was submitted that
the said Narinder Parekh, who had allegedly disclosed to
PW3-Anshul about A4 having visited the office of Ram
Chander Chhatrapati, was not examined as a witness and,
therefore, under the circumstances, no reliance could be
placed upon the said fact. Still further, no complaint as
regards the said incident was lodged with the police or with
any other competent authority. It was submitted that under
the circumstances, it would be taken to be an improvement
in the case of the prosecution aimed at implicating the
accused.
59. It was also submitted that whatever was allegedly
submitted by Narinder Parikh and PW3-Anshul, was simply
hear say evidence at the best, which was no evidence in the
eyes of law.
60. As per the disclosure statement alleged to have
been suffered by A2, A3 and A4, A4 had allegedly provided
a 0.32 bore revolver; 12 cartridges; scooter; walkie-talkie set
33 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [34]
and a car to the assailants. It was submitted that everything
as regards the aforesaid proved to be false. As regards
bullets, revolver etc., arguments addressed by Shri R.S. Rai,
Senior Advocate and Shri Ashwani Kumar Singh, Senior
Advocate, were adopted. As regards the Scooter, it was
submitted that the same had never been produced in Court
nor had been identified by any of the witnesses and in any
case was not owned by A4. As regards the walkie-talkie set,
it was submitted that there was no connection of A4 with
the said walkie-talkie set and it was not proved that the
said walkie-talkie set had been delivered to A4. One
witness-Gobhi Ram, during the course of investigation,
stated about the same, but he was not examined as a
witness. It was submitted that the delivery of the said
walkie-talkie set by A4 to A2 and A3, was also not proved
since there were two theories regarding the same, one of
which stated that it was delivered on 23.10.2002, whereas
the other stated that it was delivered on 24.10.2002. It was
submitted that there was no allegation of any walkie-talkie
set having been used or even possessed at the time of
occurrence. It was further submitted that there was no
evidence that the walkie-talkie set was connected to the
wireless licence issued in the name of the Dera. It was also
submitted that none of the articles alleged to have been
recovered, had been identified by the witnesses and without
34 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [35]
the same, they could not have been connected with the
crime.
61. It was submitted that there was no evidence to
the effect that A4 was the Prabandhak of the Dera.
Reference was made to the statement of PW31-Khatta Singh
in this regard. In support of his contentions, Shri Jhanji
relied upon Yudhishtir Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh,
(1971)3 SCC 436; State Vs. Sait, (2008)15 SCC 440; Sunil
Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta (Dr.) and others Vs. State of
Maharashtra, (2010)13 SCC 657; Kalyan Kumar Gogoi Vs.
Ashutosh Agnihotri and another, (2011)2 SCC 532; Aslam
@ Guddu Vs. State, Crl. A. No. 517/1998 decided on
20.04.2015; Modan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1978
SC 1511 and Thammaraya & Another Vs. State of
Karnataka, (2025)3 SCC 590.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF A1 (BABA GURMEET RAM)
62. Shri R. Basant, learned Senior Counsel,
representing A1, assailed the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence, primarily on the grounds,
viz., A1 had no motive against the deceased; his alleged
previous enmity with the deceased and his role in the
conspiracy. It was submitted that the charge of conspiracy
did not stand proved and that there was only one witness
i.e. PW31-Khatta Singh, who deposed on the allegations of
35 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [36]
conspiracy, but the said witness was a totally unreliable
witness, whose statement could not have been relied upon,
under any circumstance.
63. It was submitted that upto para 121, the
impugned judgment of conviction deals with the other
accused and only from paras 122 to 146, it deals with A1. It
was also submitted that evidence against the other accused
could not have been taken against A1 as the only allegation
against A1 was of having entered into a conspiracy to
murder Ram Chander Chhatrapati.
64. Giving a background of the Dera, it was
submitted that the Dera came into existence in 1948 and
A1 was its 3rd head with effect from 1990. It was submitted
that it all started with the report of the District Magistrate,
Sirsa on 28.09.2002, which was referred to by DW12-
Jitender about an anonymous letter dated 08.05.2002
having been written to the Prime Minister of India.
Publication of this anonymous complaint was made in two
National Dailies i.e. Amar Ujala on 17.05.2002 and Punjab
Kesari on 19.05.2002. In so far as Ram Chander
Chhatrapati is concerned, publications were made against
many persons and not only against A1. It was submitted
that after the initial publications by Ram Chander
Chhatrapati, members of the Tarksheel Society, were taken
to task by the Dera followers on 06.06.2002. As submitted
36 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [37]
by PW-37, the office of the publication was allegedly
attacked.
65. It was submitted that on 24.09.2002, the High
Court directed the CBI to investigate the matter pursuant to
which RC No.5 was registered. The High Court also directed
the District & Sessions Judge, Sirsa to conduct an inquiry.
District & Sessions Judge, Sirsa, in his report reported
about the internal and external disputes.
66. It was submitted that there were two versions
about the conspiracy, one of which had stated that the
conspiracy had taken place on 23.10.2002, whereas the
other stated that it had taken place on 24.10.2002. It was
submitted that RC No. 8 was registered with regard to the
murder of Ranjit Singh, which allegedly took place on
10.07.2002 and RC No.10 was recorded with regard to the
murder of Ram Chander Chhatrapati, which took place on
24.10.2002. It was submitted that vide order dated
10.11.2003, the High Court had ordered transferring of the
investigation to CBI, whereafter on 09.12.2003, the CBI re-
registered the present case as RC No. 10. It was submitted
that A4 was tortured by the CBI to implicate A1 as a result
of which, A4 submitted a complaint on 20.09.2005. It was
submitted that both RC No. 8 and RC No. 10 were being
investigated by PW43-Dr. Armandeep Singh and PW45-Shri
Satish Dagar and summons had been issued to them. It
37 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [38]
was submitted that under the circumstances, it emerges
that A4 was being tortured to implicate A1.
67. It was submitted that on 26.12.2006, statement
of Khatta Singh was recorded, who submitted that he had
witnessed the conspiracy with regard to the murder of
Ranjit Singh on 16.06.2002. It was submitted that when
this statement of Khatta Singh was recorded on 26.12.2006,
he made no mention about having witnessed the conspiracy
with regard to the murder of Ram Chander Chhatrapati. It
was submitted that while appearing as PW31 Khatta Singh
had stated that he could not disclose about the said
conspiracy on 26.12.2006 as he was under threat. It was
submitted that if Khatta Singh could have deposed about
the conspiracy with regard to the murder of Ranjit Singh on
26.12.2006, it is not understood as to how he was under
threat to not disclose about the conspiracy about the
murder of Ram Chander Chhatrapati.
68. It was submitted that on 29.03.2007, an
application was moved by Khatta Singh before the CBI
Magistrate that he had been compelled to make a
statement about A1 and that he wanted to get his statement
recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The said application
was dismissed, whereafter a revision was filed before the
Court of Sessions. An application (Exhibit PW31/D2) was
38 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [39]also moved to Superintendent of Police, Sirsa, that he was
being threatened by the CBI.
69. It was submitted that on 28.05.2007, CBI made a
statement before the High Court that investigation had been
completed and final report would be submitted by
31.05.2007 and on 21.06.2007, Khatta Singh stated that
he was a witness to the conspiracy in this case also which
had taken place on 23.10.2002
70. While referring to order dated 16.04.2007, it was
submitted that the High Court had reprimanded the CBI for
not having completed the investigation after which PW46-M.
Narayanan was introduced in the investigation on
24.04.2007 and on 28.05.2007, CBI stated that field
investigation had been completed. It was submitted that
PW31-Khatta Singh came into picture after this statement.
It was submitted that the CBI was in fact, taking it as a
blind murder and it had also announced a cash reward.
71. It was submitted that on 22.06.2007 when the
statement of Khatta Singh was recorded under Section 164
Cr.P.C., he submitted that he was being forced to make a
statement against A1. DW6 recorded the statement of
Khatta Singh. On 22.06.2007, statement of Khatta Singh
under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded and A1 was
implicated.
39 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [40]
72. It was submitted that as per the initial charge-
sheet filed by CIA, the conspiracy took place on 24.10.2002,
whereas per the supplementary charge-sheet, the
conspiracy took place on 23.10.2002. It was submitted that
after the charges had been framed on 12.12.2008, PW31
entered the witness box from 19.05.2012 to 20.04.2013 and
turned hostile. In 2015, he was examined in RC No.8 and
gave his evidence against A1, whereafter, an application
was moved for recalling PW31-Khatta Singh. The said
application was dismissed by the trial Court, but a revision
petition filed against the same was allowed by the High
Court and Khatta Singh was permitted to be recalled with
the condition that both statements would be considered.
73. It was submitted that after this, from 05.05.2018
to 25.08.2018, statement of Khatta Singh was again
recorded, wherein Khatta Singh, stated that his statement
given on 22.06.2007 was correct and the other statements
were incorrect.
74. It was submitted that the conviction of A1 was
recorded solely on the basis of statement of Khatta Singh,
which was unreliable and no reliance whatsoever, could
have been placed upon the same.
75. Thereafter, learned Senior Counsel referred to
certain contradictions in the statements of the witnesses. It
40 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [41]
was submitted that the trial Court did not consider the
possibility of the followers of the Dera having attacked Ram
Chander Chhatrapati without the involvement of A1. It was
submitted that after the first conviction of A1, large scale
violence took place in Panchkula, which was attributed to
the followers of the Dera. It was submitted that fortunately
A1 was in custody at that time, otherwise, he would have
been held to be responsible for the said crime also.
Learned Senior Counsel submitted that this alone is
sufficient to prove that any acts committed by the followers
of the Dera could not be said to have been committed
pursuant to a conspiracy having been hatched by A1.
76. It was submitted that there was no evidence as
regards A2 and A4 having been employed by the Dera.
Reference was made to the statement of PW30-Vijay Singh
in this regard.
77. As regards the news item published in `Pura
Sach’, it was submitted that the same was simply a
repetition of the news items being published by other
National Dailies. Reference was made to Exhibit PW3/1 and
other documents available on record, in this regard.
78. It was submitted that the allegation is that the
conspiracy was hatched after seeing the publication
41 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [42]
PW3/14, whereas no conspiracy could have been hatched
pursuant to the same.
79. It was submitted that the trial Court should not
have accepted evidence of PW31 because the incident took
place on 24.12.2002. Initially, the charge sheet against A1
to A4 was filed by CIA and RC-10 was registered on
10.11.2003. Khatta Singh came into picture for the first
time on 26.12.2006 when his statement was recorded in
RC-8 and only on 21.06.2007, he stated about the present
case. Reference was made to judgment of Vadivelu Thevar
Vs. State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614 and the judgment
in the case (2023) 10 SCC 451, wherein the judgment in
Vadivelu‘s case was referred. It was submitted that PW31-
Khatta Singh, belongs to the third category as per the
categories laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
aforesaid judgment.
80. It was submitted that Khatta Singh had stated
that his signatures had been obtained on blank papers and
if the said documents are perused, it emerges that the
documents are not such on which signatures could not
have been obtained on blank papers. Reference in this
regard is made to documents Exhibits DW31/DA and
DW31/C. It was submitted that the evidence of Khatta
Singh, who had changed his version multiple times, cannot,
therefore, be relied upon.
42 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [43]
81. It was also submitted that despite the fact that
the jurisdictional CBI Court was at Ambala, statement of
Khatta Singh under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded on
22.06.2007 before the Duty Magistrate, Chandigarh, for
which, the CBI had no explanation. In fact, CBI avoided the
jurisdictional Court at Ambala. It was submitted that
Khatta Singh had levelled the allegations against CBI and
the manner in which PW43 and PW46 had intimidated
PW31 to give statement. It was submitted that it was under
these circumstances that Khatta Singh was not taken to
Ambala and his statement was got recorded at Chandigarh.
82. It was submitted that in fact, Khatta Singh, in a
way was an accomplice as per the case of prosecution, and,
therefore, independent corroboration was required. In
support his contentions, learned Senior Counsel relied upon
Param Hans Yadav and Sadanand Tripathi Vs. State of
Bihar and others, (1987)2 SCC 197; Saju Vs. State of
Kerala, (2001)1 SCC 378; Girja Shankar Misra Vs. State of
U.P., 1994 Supp(1) SCC 26; P.K. Narayanan Vs. State of
Kerala, 1995(1) SCC 142; State of M.P. Vs. Kriparam,
(2003)12 SCC 675; Shahid Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan,
(2016)4 SCC 96; Harbeer Singh Vs. Sheeshpal and others,
(2016)16 SCC 418; Agniraj and others Vs. State through
Deputy Superintendent of Police, CB-CID 2025 SCC OnLine
SC 1203; Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2009)3 SCC
43 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [44]391; Vikramjit Singh alias Vicky Vs. State of Punjab,
(2006)12 SCC 306; Suraj Mal Vs. State (Delhi
Administration), (1979)4 SCC 725; Sharnappa Mutyappa
Halke Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1964 SC 1357;
Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Bibi Jagir Kaur and
others, 2018 SCC OnLine P&H 1959; Pradeep Kumar Vs.
State of Haryana,(2024)3 SCC 324; Sunil Kumar
Sambhudayal Gupta (Dr.) and others Vs. State of
Maharashtra, (2010)13 SCC 657; Vadivelu Thevar Vs. State
of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614; Khema alias Khem Chandra
and others Vs. State of U.P., (2023) 10 SCC 451; Lachhi
Ram Vs. State of Punjab, 1966 SCC OnLine SC 92; Sarwan
Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 1957 SCC OnLine SC page 1;
Kashmira Singh Vs. State of M.P. (1952)1 SCC 275; Anter
Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2004)10 SCC 657; Kusal
Toppo & Another Vs. State of Jharkhand, (2019)13 SCC
676; Thammaraya & Another Vs. State of Karnataka,
(2025)3 SCC 590; R. Shaji Vs. State of Kerala, (2013)14
SCC 266; R. Palanisamy Vs. State by Inspector of Police,
2013 SCC OnLine Mad 1467; S. Arul Raja Vs. State of T.N.,
(2010)8 SCC 233; Natwarlal Sakarlal Mody Vs. The State of
Bombay, 1961 SCC OnLine SC page 1; Central Bureau of
Investigation Vs. V.C. Shukla and others, 1998(3) SCC 410;
State of Maharashtra Vs. Damu and others, 2000(6) SCC
269; Habeeb Mohammed Vs. Hyderabad, (1953)2 SCC 231
44 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [45]
and Babubhai Bhimabhai Bokhiria and another Vs. State of
Gujarat and others, (2014)5 SCC 568.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF CENTRAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION
83. Initiating arguments on behalf of the Central
Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Mr. Akashdeep Singh,
Advocate, submitted that the arguments advanced by
learned counsel for the appellants as regards the scientific
evidence viz., seals on parcels, the bullets and the weapon
used, the reports of FSL, etc., do not, in any manner benefit
the appellants.
84. Coming to the arguments raised as regards seals
on various parcels, it was submitted that if one examines
the ocular and the documentary evidence led on the record
of the case, it emerges that the chain was complete and
there had been no manipulation and laxity either on the
part of the investigating agency or on the part of the
Doctors.
85. Referring first to Exhibit PW5/7, which was the
recovery memo of a bullet, it was submitted that it is duly
mentioned in the said recovery memo that the parcels
containing trousers, belt and shirt of the injured Ram
Chander Chhatrapati had the impression of mortuary and
the parcel containing the bullet in a plastic container also
45 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [46]
had the impression of stamp of the mortuary. It was
submitted that the said parcel reached the FSL with the
seal of mortuary and after having been examined in FSL, it
was signed by PW28-L.S. Yadav, Assistant Director, FSL,
Madhuban. He duly stated in his statement that the parcel
containing a glass vial containing .32 inch fired bullet
marked as BC/2, bore his signatures. He also deposed that
the parcel also contained one original packing of the vial
with the seal of mortuary of Civil Hospital, Sirsa. Further,
reference was made to the statement of PW28-L.S. Yadav
that he had mentioned in his report about the description of
the seal on parcel Nos. 6 and 7 and that they had the seals
of Doctor as well.
86. Learned counsel submitted that learned counsel
representing the appellants had picked up isolated parts of
the statements and documents with a view to make out a
case that there was manipulation with the case property,
whereas actually if one reads the documentary as also the
ocular evidence in conjunction with each other, it emerges
that there was no manipulation. Referring further to the
statement of PW28-L.S. Yadav, it was submitted seal on the
parcel had not been broken.
87. Similar arguments were advanced with respect to
the other seals, for example, the seal on the weapon `BS’,
which reached the FSL with the seal `BS’ and was opened in
46 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [47]
the Court with the seal of `BS’ and different seals. Reference
in this regard was again made to the statement of PW28-
L.S. Yadav.
88. Another argument was raised by learned counsel
that what normally happens is that the parcel is cut from
the side so that the seal affixed by the previous authorities
remains intact and then the same is re-sealed with the seal
of the checking/attesting authorities as a result of which,
the seal of the previous authorities remains intact. It was
also submitted that these arguments as regards the seals,
had never been raised before the trial Court and have been
raised for the first time before this Court in appeal.
89. As regards the size of the bullet, it was submitted
that the weapon of offence was a .32 bore Indian Ordinance
Factory made revolver which had a bullet of .32 inches
bore, which comes to 0.81 centimetre. As regards the
argument that the bullet should have been deformed, it was
submitted that deformation could be due to touching of
bone. It was submitted that the bullets in question were
lapua bullets, which was duly so stated by the FSL. It was
submitted that the lapua bullet was a flat head bullet and
PW28-L.S. Yadav stated that both bullets i.e., the one
recovered from the body and another from the underwear,
were lapua bullets and, therefore, the arguments advanced
by learned counsel for the appellants are devoid of merit.
47 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [48]
90. As regards the argument that once the version of
the complainant and the prosecuting agency was that the
shots had been fired at Ram Chander Chhatrapati from the
front, whereas the documentary evidence shows that some
had been fired from the front and some from the back. It
was submitted that when someone opens a fire upon a
person, as a natural tendency, the person ducks or turns
around with a view to escape and under the circumstances,
he may be struck by the bullets on the front as well as on
the back. Learned counsel referred to the X-ray report and
other documents on record, including the pictorial diagram
and submitted that no benefit could be granted to the
appellants on account of the fact that few wounds were
found on the front whereas the others were found on the
back of Ram Chander Chhatrapati.
91. As regards the argument that certain bullets had
not been found, it was submitted that it was the consistent
stand of the prosecuting agency that there were two bullets
inside the body and out of the same, one bullet had been
recovered as per the Post Mortem Report (Exhibit PW10/B).
He submitted that since the spinal column was not opened,
the other bullet was not recovered and only one bullet was
recovered from the lung. It was submitted that since the
area where the incident had taken place had also been
compromised, some bullets which did not enter the body
48 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [49]
may have been removed from the spot as there was an
injury on the body but the corresponding bullet was not
found.
92. Coming to the argument as to why the statement
of Ram Chander Chhatrapati or that of his son Anshul
Chhatrapati, who was accompanying him, was not recorded
immediately, reference was made to the Bed Head Ticket
(Exhibit PW6/C), which shows that Ram Chander
Chhatrapati, was wheeled into the Civil Hospital, Sirsa on
24.10.2002 at about 8.15 p.m. and was referred to PGIMS,
Rohtak at about 9.15 p.m. It was submitted that during
this one hour when the patient, as per the Medico Legal
Report, was crying in pain and had to be administered one
injection after the other, it was not possible to record the
statement of the injured or his son, especially when within
one hour, the patient was referred to PGIMS, Rohtak.
Reference was made to the application (Exhibit PW6/E),
which was moved by the incharge of the Police Post,
Khairpur to the Medical Officer, Government Hospital,
Sirsa, seeking his opinion as regards the condition of the
injured for giving the statement. On this application moved
on 24.10.2002 itself, opinion Exhibit PW6/F was given that
the patient had been referred to PGIMS, Rohtak for further
management. It was submitted that this clearly shows that
49 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [50]
no time was lost in taking the version of the injured or his
son.
93. As regards the medical condition of the injured,
while he was admitted in PGIMS, Rohtak, reference was
made to the statement of PW8-Dr. Rajinder Kumar
Karvasara, Head of the Department of Surgery, PGIMS,
Rohtak.
94. As regards the non-examination of Dr. J.P.
Chaudhary, it was submitted that the injured had only
given his history to the said Doctor and he was otherwise
examined by PW6-Dr. Dale Singh, who was duly examined
as a witness. In his statement to the police, it was stated by
Dr. J.P. Chaudhary, that he was a Surgeon in the hospital
and he had been called by Dr. Dale Singh. It was submitted
by learned counsel that Dr. J.P. Chaudhary, would at best
have given details of the injuries suffered by Ram Chander
Chhatrapati and, therefore, his non-examination did not
cause any dent in the case of the prosecution.
95. As regards the statement of Ram Chander
Chhatrapati having been recorded by SI Ram Chander, it
was submitted that a lie detector/polygraph test was
conducted upon SI Ram Chander and his responses were
found to be deceptive and it was under these circumstances
that he was not examined as a witness. It was submitted
50 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [51]
that sometimes, the witnesses are also compromised and
such witnesses are not required to be examined by the
prosecution. However, on a query raised by the Court as to
whether the witness (SI Ram Chander) had been given up
as having been won over or being unnecessary, learned
counsel submitted that he had been given up as being
unnecessary.
96. As regards a DDR having not been registered
when Kuldeep Singh was taken to the police post, it was
submitted that the situation was highly volatile and there
were lot of activities going on and a mob had reached the
hospital. The entire police had been sent into a tizzy and,
therefore, a DDR might not have been recorded. It was
submitted that on account of non-recording of DDR, no
benefit could be extended to the appellants as the same
does not go to the root of the matter and in any case, the
case of the prosecution would not fall to the ground only on
this account.
97. It was submitted that the most natural version of
the incident came from the statement of Aridaman, who was
the son of Ram Chander Chhatrapati and had witnessed the
incident.
98. As regards the newspaper reports regarding the
arrest of Nirmal Singh, it was submitted that no reliance
51 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [52]
could be placed upon such reports as the same were not
proved in accordance with law. It was submitted that the
reporters of the said reports, namely, Amit Krishan Tiwari
and Naresh Arora, were not examined and, therefore, no
reliance could be placed upon such reports. It was
submitted that this aspect was duly considered by the trial
Court and submissions made by the defence were rightly
turned down. It was also submitted that once Kuldeep
Singh had been arrested from the spot, who was stated to
be the pillion rider on the motorcycle, the police party would
have naturally seen the driver of the motorcycle as they
were at a very close distance from each other and, therefore,
for Kuldeep Singh to say in his statement under Section
313 Cr.P.C. that the story of the Naka having been laid, was
false, was of no relevance.
99. Upon a query having been put by the Court as to
how PW23-Diwan Singh had stated that Nirmal Singh had
been arrested on 25.10.2002, no satisfactory response was
forthcoming. It was then submitted by learned counsel that
in fact, Diwan Singh was not associated with the
investigation before 30.10.2002 and, therefore, it is not
understood as to how he could have said that the revolver
was recovered on 25.10.2002.
100. It was submitted that the licence for walkie-
talkies had been given by the Government of India and it
52 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [53]
mentioned two fixed sets and six handheld sets (Exhibit
MO/C). It was submitted that the licence was in the name
of Dera Sacha Sauda. It was also submitted that the arms
licence was in the name of Krishan Lal, who was shown to
be a resident of Dera Sacha Sauda, in the licence.
101. As regards the Test Identification Parade (TIP), it
was submitted that the evidentiary value of the evidence led
on the record had to be seen and conduct of TIP was not a
matter of right. It was submitted that when Kuldeep Singh
was arrested from the spot, the police personnel; Anshul
and Aridaman had an occasion to closely see both Kuldeep
Singh and Nirmal and, therefore, the TIP was not required.
It was also submitted that the photographs of these persons
were visible in the magazine and, therefore, there was no
need to conduct the TIP. It was submitted that even
otherwise, mere non-holding of a TIP would not demolish
the case of the prosecution.
102. As regards the arguments that no time of arrest
of Kuldeep Singh was mentioned in the arrest memo, it was
submitted that the said document had not been produced
in evidence and, therefore, it could not be referred to nor it
could be looked into.
103. Shri Ravi Kamal Gupta, Advocate, addressed
arguments as regards the role of A4 and A1 and also the
53 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [54]
statement given by PW31-Khatta Singh. As regards A4, it
was submitted that he had been arrested at Ferozepur on
28.10.2002. Reference was made to his production warrant
(Exhibit PW31/1). Reference was then made to the
statement of PW31-Khatta Singh. It was submitted that the
role of A4 becomes clear as the licenced weapon was in his
name and in the said licence, he had been shown to be a
resident of Dera Sacha Sauda. Reference was made to
document Exhibit PW28/1, which was the report of Dr.
L.S. Yadav as regards fire arms etc., which was in the name
of A4.
104. Reference was also made to the deposition of
PW30-Vijay Singh, who submitted that in all documents,
the address of A4 was mentioned as resident of Dera Sacha
Sauda. Reference was made to Exhibits PW14/A and
PW14/B and other documents. It was submitted that it
was not the case of A4 that his weapon had been lost or
stolen and he could not explain as to how his licenced
weapon had been used in the crime. It was submitted that
on account of this also, an adverse inference deserves to be
drawn against A4.
105. It was submitted that there were two witnesses,
namely, Kala Singh and Gurcharan Singh, who could have
further deposed about the role of A4, but the said witnesses
had been given up as having been won over.
54 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [55]
106. As regards A1, it was submitted that there was
clinching evidence on record to prove that he was a part of
the conspiracy. Reference was made to the statement of
PW31-Khatta Singh, who was the ex driver of A1 and a
witness of the conspiracy. Apart from this, he was also a
victim of castration and Khatta Singh, apart from having
deposed in the present case, also deposed in the case of
murder of Ranjit Singh, as also in the castration case. It
was submitted that Khatta Singh resiled from his statement
because he was under consistent threats from A1 and the
Dera Sacha Sauda but after A1 was convicted in 2017,
Khatta Singh mustered the courage to give his correct
statement. It was submitted that if one examines the
statement of Khatta Singh in detail along with other
documents on record, it emerges that the statement of
Khatta Singh is worthy of reliance. Reference was made to
Para No. 134 of the judgment where the trial Court had
dealt with the said issue. It was submitted that no fault can
be found with the said finding.
107. As regards the revision petition etc. and the
request for recording 164 statement made by Khatta Singh,
it was submitted that Khatta Singh had clearly stated that
he had not filed any revision petition and his signatures
were obtained on blank papers. Reference was also made to
the cross-examination of DW-1 Roshan Lal Aggarwal,
55 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [56]
Notary Public, District Courts, Ambala. Reference was also
made to the affidavit of Khatta Singh (Exhibit P.31/DB) to
submit that the said affidavit be compared with the
deposition of PW37-Madan Bansal, which would clarify the
entire thing.
108. As regards the recording of statement of Khatta
Singh under Section 164 Cr.P.C. at Chandigarh, it was
submitted that the said statement could have been recorded
anywhere and that it was not essential that the same was to
be recorded only at Ambala. It was submitted that after A1
had been convicted on 25.08.2017 in a rape case, Khatta
Singh had filed an application on 14.09.2017 that he
wanted to give his statement. Accordingly, an application
had been moved under Section 311 Cr.P.C., which was
dismissed by the trial Court, but was allowed by the High
Court vide order dated 23.04.2018 and an SLP against the
said order was dismissed on 04.05.2018. Reference was
made to paragraph Nos. 130 and 131 of the trial Court
judgment, which deal with the said issue. Learned counsel
submitted that no interference was called for in the said
findings because Khatta Singh had given his actual
statement when he subsequently entered the witness box
again on 23.04.2018.
109. As regards the argument that when Khatta Singh
gave his statement against A1 in RC No. 8 pertaining to the
56 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [57]
murder of Ranjit Singh on 26.12.2006 why he did not give
his statement as regards the conspiracy in the present case,
it was submitted that the same was clarified by Khatta
Singh himself in his cross-examination as he stated that he
was under a severe threat and fear from A1 and that he had
made a statement before Armandeep Singh, only when he
was assured of the security of his family. Reference was also
made to the statement of PW43-Dr. Armandeep Singh.
110. As regards A1, it was submitted that from the
evidence of Khatta Singh, it becomes clear that the
conspiracy was hatched by A1 as the news item regarding
sexual exploitation of Sadhvis was published and therefore,
no other person had an occasion to kill Ram Chander
Chhatrapati. It was submitted that A2 and A3 as also A4
were not shown to have any enmity with Ram Chander
Chhatrapati and, therefore, did not have any motive to kill
him. It was submitted that Ram Chander Chhatrapati had
been writing to the Superintendent of Police, Sirsa, to
provide him security as he was being threatened by the
Dera Sacha Sauda persons.
111. It was also submitted that the statement of Ram
Chander Chhatrapati given to Anshul that A4 had come to
his office and had threatened him that if publishing of any
news item against the Dera was not stopped, then under
the order of A1, he would be lifted (jis din maharaj ka hukm
57 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [58]
hoga, us din tere ko utha lenge), amounts to a dying
declaration and an oral dying declaration is admissible in
evidence.
112. It was submitted that conspiracies are always
hatched in secrecy and seldom would direct evidence be
available thereof. It was submitted that from the evidence
led on record of the case, it becomes manifestly clear that
the conspiracy to kill Ram Chander Chhatrapati, was
hatched by A1.
113. It was also submitted that Sohna Ram, father of
Ram Chander Chhatrapati, had been writing to the
administration that the life of his son was under threat.
However, since he expired thereafter, no further
communications by him were there.
114. On the issues of motive and criminal conspiracy,
it was submitted that both were interlinked and the
provocative publications were against A1 and, therefore, the
motive to kill Ram Chander Chhatrapati was there with A1.
Reference was made to paragraphs No. 120 to 132 of the
impugned judgment and it was submitted that the trial
Court dealt with the issues in a proper manner and
examined the matter from the correct perspective and no
interference is, therefore, called for.
58 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [59]
115. Reference was also made to Section 8 of the
Indian Evidence Act and it was submitted that motive,
preparation, previous and subsequent conduct, all were
duly proved. It was submitted that there was a duty cast
upon A1 to stop his disciples/supporters from taking law
into their hands and since it has not come on record that he
had made any effort to stop them, he would be said to be a
part of the conspiracy. Reference was made to the
statements of PW1-Balwant Singh; PW2-Raja Ram
Handaya; PW3-Anshul Chhatrapati; PW4-Raj Kumar Saini;
PW5-Aridaman; PW19-Vishwajeet; PW21-Lekh Raj and
PW37-Madan Bansal.
116. Reference was also made to Section 10 of the
Evidence Act. While referring to the judgment of the three-
Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhagwan
Swarup Lal Bishan Lal Vs. The State of Maharashtra,
1965 AIR SC 682, it was reiterated that direct evidence is
difficult to gather and, therefore, the statement of Khatta
Singh, who was an eye witness to the conspiracy, deserves
to be accepted.
117. As regards the argument that the charge of
conspiracy mentioned the conspiracy having been hatched
on 24.10.2002, whereas after the investigation had been
taken over by the CBI, the charge mentioned the conspiracy
to have been entered into on 23.10.2002, it was submitted
59 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [60]
that the State Police had acted in a hush-hush manner and
on account of this only, the investigation was handed over
to CBI. It was submitted that since Anshul Chhatrapati had
moved a petition in the High Court, charges were got framed
by the State Investigating Agency so that the petition filed
by Anshul Chhatrapati could be rendered infructuous.
118. In support of their contentions, learned Counsel
for the CBI relied upon Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd.
Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023(2) RCR (Criminal
241; Israr Vs. State of U.P., (2005) 9 SCC 616; Ravasaheb @
Ravasahebgouda etc. Vs. State of Karnataka, (2023)5 SCC
391; Rajesh Yadav & Anr. etc. Vs. State of U.P., (2022) 12
SCC 200; Mohd. Naushad Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi),
2023 SCC Online SC 784; Bhagwan Singh Vs. State of
Haryana, (1976)1 SCC 389; Takdir Samsuddin Sheikh Vs.
State of Gujarat and another, (2011)10 SCC 158; Madanur
Ravi and others Vs. State, (Crl. RC Nos. 1382 of 2012
decided on 09.01.2020) Law Finder Doc Id # 1685972;
Umar Abdul Sakoor Sorathia Vs. Intelligence Officer,
Narcotics Control Bureau, (2000)1 SCC 138; Ashok
Debbarma @ Achak Debbarma Vs. State of Tripura, (2014)4
SCC 747; Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma Vs. State
(NCT of Delhi), (2010)6 SCC page 1; Sajeev Vs. State of
Kerala, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1470; Firozuddin
Basheeruddin Vs. State of Kerala, 2001 AIR SC 3488; Ajay
60 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [61]
Agarwal Vs. Union of India and another, 1993 AIR SC 1637;
Yash Pal Mittal Vs. The State of Punjab, 1977 AIR SC 2433;
E.K. Chandrasenan Vs. State of Kerala, 1995 AIR SC 1066;
Esher Singh Vs. State of A.P., AIR 2004 SC 3030; Rajiv @
Monu and other Vs. State NCT of Delhi, (Crl.A.No.192 of
2017 decided on 08.10.2018) Law Finder Doc Id # 1262952;
Pattu Rajan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2019(2) RCR
(Criminal) 709; Mahabir Singh etc. Vs. State of Haryana,
2001 AIR SC 2503; Jogendra Nahak Vs. State of Orissa,
1999 AIR SC 2565 and Dalip Singh and others Vs. State of
Punjab, 1953 AIR SC 364.
119. Shri R.S. Bains, Senior Advocate, learned counsel
representing the complainant, reiterated the submissions
made by learned counsel representing the Central Bureau
of Investigation and also relied upon Zahira Habibulla H.
Sheikh and another Vs. State of Gujarat and others,
(2024)3 SCR 1050; Chandra Mohan Tiwari and another Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh, (1992)2 SCC 105; Hari and
another Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, (2021) 10 SCR
1022; Gura Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan, (2001)2 SCC
205; Mahender Chawla and others Vs. Union of India,
(2019)14 SCC 615; Ram Gulam Chaudhury and others Vs.
State of Bihar, (2001)8 SCC 311; Sajeev Vs. State of Kerala,
(2023)6 KLT 288; Bilal Hajar @ Abdul Hameed Vs. State
Rep. by Inspector of Police, (2019)17 SCC 451; State of NCT
61 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [62]
of Delhi Vs. Shiv Charan Bansal and others, (2020)2 SCC
290; Mukesh Vs. State for NCT of Delhi, (2017) 6 SCC page
1; Dhanaj Singh @ Shera and others Vs. State of Punjab,
2004 AIR SC 1920; Dayal Singh and others Vs. State of
Uttaranchal, (2012)8 SCC 263; Edakkandi Dineshan @ P.
Dineshan and others Vs. State of Kerala, 2025 INSC 28;
State of M.P. Vs. Shyamsunder Trivedi and others, (1995)4
SCC 262 and Prithipal Singh etc. Vs. State of Punjab and
another etc., (2012)1 SCC 10.
120. In response, learned Senior Counsel representing
the appellants, reiterated the submissions made by them
and countered the submissions made by the CBI.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
121. We have considered the submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties and have perused the
voluminous record.
122. Section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (Section 427 BNSS, 2023) lays down the powers of an
Appellate Court. In so far as an appeal against conviction is
concerned, an Appellate Court may, after hearing the
parties and perusing the record, affirm the findings of the
trial Court, reverse the same and acquit the accused or
while maintaining the finding on conviction, alter the nature
62 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [63]
and extent of the sentence, but not so as to enhance the
same.
123. Though no argument was addressed as to
whether the death of Ram Chander Chhatrapati was
homicidal or not, upon analysis of the evidence and the
judgment of the trial Court, the findings of the trial Court in
this regard, do not call for any interference. The ocular and
medical evidence in the form of testimonies of PW-5
Aridaman, PW-3 Anshul Chhatrapati, PW-6 Dr. Dale Singh,
PW-8 Dr. R.K. Karwasra, PW-9 Dr. Praveen Kumar Singh
and PW-10 Dr. Chitranjan Behera duly established that
Ramchander Chhatrapati had sustained fire arm injuries.
PW-6 Dr. Dale Singh, who had examined Ram Chander
Chhatrapati on 24.10.2002, when, immediately after the
incident, he was wheeled into Civil Hospital, Sirsa, had
found the following injuries on his person (MLR
Ex.PW6/A):-
“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
Thoracolumbar region at vertebral column slightly63 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [64]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.”
124. The X-ray films and CT-Scan films were also
produced on record. The Doctor, viz Dr. Chitranjan Behera
(PW10), who had conducted the postmortem examination of
the deceased (PMR Ex.PW10/B) deposed that the cause of
death was septicemia consequent upon ante-mortem
gunshot injuries. He had found the following injuries on the
dead body:-
“1. Wound of size 2 cm x 1 cm oval in shape, with
granulation tissue present at margin over right
abdomen placed 5 cm right to midline, 32 cm below
and left to right nipple and 95 cm right foot.
2. Wound of size 1.5 cm 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. Wond 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.
64 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [65]
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
middle 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 wound 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.”
125. PW-11 Dr. Sushil Kumar Jain, Senior Consultant
from Apollo Hospital, also deposed that the injured patient
had been wheeled into the emergency of Apollo Hospital on
8.11.2002 at 5.00 p.m. with gunshot injuries on his
abdomen and chest. He deposed that the patient expired on
21.11.2002. He produced the death summary Ex.PW11/A
and deposed that the cause of death was septicemia with
acute renal failure with multi organ failure, due to gunshot
injuries.
126. A cumulative examination and analysis of the
statements of the aforesaid witnesses and the documentary
65 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [66]
evidence produced by them, conclusively proves that Ram
Chander Chhatrapati had expired as a result of gunshot
injuries. The findings of the trial Court on the said issue
are, therefore, based upon sound reasoning and a close and
indepth examination of the record.
ROLE OF A2 AND A3
127. The next question, which arises for the
consideration of this Court, is as to who had caused the
gunshot injuries to Ram Chander Chhatrapati. The trial
Court held that it was A2-Kuldeep and A3-Nirmal, who were
responsible for the same.
128. Before we analyse the findings recorded by the
trial Court and the arguments addressed by learned counsel
for the parties on the said issue, it would be apposite to
refer to the law as regards the statements of eye-witnesses
and related witnesses, who, at times are stated to be
interested witnesses by the defence. Notably, both PW-3
Anshul Chhatrapati and PW5-Aridaman are stated to be eye
witnesses to the incident. Apart from being eye witnesses,
they are also related witnesses.
129. In Dalip Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (1953)2
SCC 36, a three Judges Bench of Apex Court, was hearing
an appeal against sentences of death passed upon the
appellants therein for the murder of two real brothers. The
66 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [67]
Court of Sessions had convicted the appellants along with
three others and had sentenced them to transportation for
life. The High Court acquitted three of them, but sustained
the conviction of four convicts, who then preferred appeals
before the Apex Court. All seven accused belonged to the
same village as also to the same faction or `party’ as called
by one of the witnesses. Out of the seven assailants, Dalip
Singh and Battan Singh, were brothers. Jarnail Singh son
of Battan Singh was also amongst them. The remaining four
were not related to the other three, except for being from the
same party.
130. On 16.06.1951, they killed two brothers, Rattan
Singh and Baba Singh. One of the questions, which arose
before the Apex Court was as to whether the testimonies of
the two eye witnesses, required corroboration. It had so
been held by the High Court in that case. The Apex
Court held that if the foundation for such an observation
was based on the fact that the witnesses were women and
the fate of seven men hanged on their testimony, it did not
know of any such rule. It was held that if the finding of the
High Court was grounded on the reason that the eye
witnesses were closely related to the deceased, it was
unable to concur. It was held that it was a fallacy common
to many criminal cases. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in 1956,
expressed its dismay that such a fallacy still persisted.
67 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [68]
131. It was held by the Apex Court that a witness
normally is considered to be independent unless he or she
springs from sources, which are likely to be tainted which
usually meant that unless the witness had a cause, such as
enmity against the accused or a wish to implicate falsely. It
was held that ordinarily, a close relative would be the last to
screen the real culprit and implicate an innocent person.
The Hon’ble Apex Court noticed that it was true that when
feelings run high and there is personal cause for enmity,
there is a tendency to drag in an innocent person against
whom a witness has a grudge along with the guilty, but
foundation must be laid for such a criticism and the mere
fact of relationship far from being a foundation is often a
sure guarantee of truth.
132. In the case of Raju alias Bala Chandran and
others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2013 Crl.L.R. 12(SC), a
word of caution was sounded by the Apex Court that the
evidence of a related and interested witness should be
examined with great care and caution and in case the
related and interested witness had some enmity with the
assailant, the bar would need to be raised and the evidence
of the witness would have to be examined by applying a
standard of discerning scrutiny. The Apex Court also
referred to the judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan
Vs. Kalki, (1981)2 SCC 752, in which the difference
68 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [69]
between a related and interested witness was spelt out. In
that case, it was held that even though the witness was the
wife of the deceased, she could not be termed to be an
interested witness. It was held that an interested witness
may be called “interested” only when he or she derives some
benefit from the result of a litigation; in the decree of a civil
case, or in seeing an accused person punished. It was held
that a witness who is a natural witness and is the only
possible eye witness in the circumstances of a case cannot
be said to be `interested’.
133. In Darya Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (1964)3
SCR 397, the Apex Court held that a related or interested
witness may not be hostile to the assailant, but if he is,
then his evidence must be examined very carefully and all
the infirmities taken into account.
134. In the case of Guli Chand and others Vs. State
of Rajasthan, (1974)3 SCC 698, their Lordships of the
Hon’ble Apex Court, while referring to the judgment in the
case of Dalip Singh (supra), reiterated the aforesaid
principles. It was held that in a given case, for reasons
special to that case and to a witness, it could be said that
such a witness could not be believed because of his general
unreliability. However, the basis for such a conclusion must
rest on facts special to the particular instance and cannot
69 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [70]
be grounded on a supposedly general rule of prudence
enjoined by law as in the case of accomplices.
135. These principles have withstood the test of time
and have been recently reiterated by the Apex Court in the
case of Goverdhan Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2025)3
SCC 378. A three Judges Bench of the Apex Court was, in
this case, hearing an appeal against a judgment of a
Division Bench of High Court of Chhattisgarh, vide which
the conviction of the two appellants before the Apex Court
under Section 302 IPC had been upheld and the conviction
of a third accused had been set aside. In this case also, one
of the issues, which arose before the Apex Court was as
regards a witness being an interested witness. After
examining the law on the subject, the Apex Court, while
referring to the findings in Dalip Singh’s case (supra),
reiterated the principles that such a witness would have no
reason to falsely implicate the appellants.
136. Even otherwise, the evidence of an eye witness
is kept at a very high pedestal and unless and until, the
same is shattered completely in cross-examination, it is not
normally discarded.
137. Keeping in mind the aforesaid principles, we
proceed to examine the issue.
70 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [71]
138. To appreciate as to whether the findings of the
trial Court are sustainable, we will have to go back to the
fateful evening of 24.10.2002 when Ram Chander
Chhatrapati was shot at.
139. The incident took place at about 8.00 p.m. on
24.10.2002. Ram Chander Chhatrapati, along with his two
sons PW3-Anshul Chhatrapati and PW5-Aridaman, and his
daughter was at home and were about to have their meals
when Ram Chander Chhatrapati was called out and shot at.
The FIR Ex.PW30/4 was registered in the late hours of
24.10.2002 on the statement (Ex.PW5/A) of PW5-Aridaman.
The version given by Aridaman in the FIR was reiterated by
him when he stepped into the witness box as PW5, years
after the registration of the FIR. His testimony could not be
shattered in the cross-examination. Same is the case with
PW3-Anshul Chhatrapati, who also gave the same
statement as that given by PW5-Aridaman. The version
given by him in Court, was not any different from his
previous statement recorded by the Investigating Agency.
His testimony could also not be shattered in the cross-
examination.
140. Minor inconsistencies in the evidence are of no
relevance. When one deposes in Court after much time has
elapsed from the incident, inconsistencies are bound to be
there. If a prudent man is asked to repeat as to what had
71 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [72]
happened few days back, he may not be able to give a word
by word account. In fact, in India, even the maxim `falsus
in uno falsus in omnibus’ is not applicable, meaning
thereby that if one part of the statement or certain parts of
the statement of a witness are found to be false, the entire
statement is not required to be discarded.
141. In Yogesh Singh Vs. Mahabeer Singh, 2016(4)
RCR (Crl.) 753 (SC), the Apex Court held that minor
discrepancies in the evidence should not be given undue
emphasis and that the evidence is to be considered from the
point of view of trustworthiness. It was held that the test
would be as to whether the evidence inspires confidence in
the mind of the Court. It was held that if the evidence is
not credible and cannot be accepted by the test of
prudence, it may create a dent in the prosecution version. If
an omission or discrepancy goes to the root of the matter
and ushers in incongruities, the defence can take advantage
of such inconsistencies. It was held that it needs no special
emphasis to state that every omission cannot take the place
of a material omission and therefore, minor contradictions,
inconsistencies or insignificant embellishments do not affect
the core of the prosecution case and should not be taken to
be a ground to reject the prosecution evidence. The Apex
Court held that the omission should create a serious doubt
about the truthfulness or creditworthiness of a witness. It
72 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [73]
was held that it is only the serious contradictions and
omissions which materially affect the case of the
prosecution. This view has been taken by the Apex Court in
a host of other judgments, which were referred to by the
Apex Court in the said judgment.
142. Both witnesses duly named the assailants in
their statements. Even the statement (Ex.PW5/A), on the
basis of which, the FIR was registered contained the names
of A3 and A2. Still further, A2 was apprehended at the spot
and A3 was apprehended on 26.10.2002. The weapon of
offence was recovered from A3.
143. The trial Court found the said statements to be
consistent and trustworthy. Having considered the
arguments addressed by learned counsel for the parties,
this Court finds no illegality in the aforesaid findings of the
trial Court. The statements of both PW3-Anshul
Chhatrapati and PW5-Aridaman, are completely consistent
and trustworthy. They cannot be said to be parrot like
statements though, when a truth is stated, it may appear to
be a parrot like statement.
144. The argument that it was the specific case of the
alleged eyewitnesses that shots had been fired at Ram
Chander Chhatrapati from the front side, whereas injuries
were found both on the front of his body and the back,
73 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [74]
brought out the falsity of the statement is devoid of merit. It
was the specific case right from the beginning that when
Ram Chander Chhatrapati went out of the house, he was
shot at from the front side. When shots are fired, there is a
natural tendency of a person to either duck or to
immediately turn around. When shots are fired
continuously, there is a very high likelihood that some
shots may hit on the front of the body and the remaining on
the back side, when a person ducks or turns around. No
dent can, therefore, be caused in the case of the
prosecution on account of this fact.
145. The argument that the genesis of the occurrence
was suppressed by the prosecution, is devoid of merit and is
rejected. There was practically no delay in the registration of
the FIR. When such an incident had taken place, the first
concern of the family would be to rush the injured to the
hospital. At that time, no one knows and wants to believe
that their near and dear one may not survive. Under such
circumstances, a statement was given to the police. Mere
delay in sending the special report to the Magistrate would
also not cause a dent in the case of the prosecution as the
FIR had been registered shortly after the incident, on the
statement of PW5-Aridaman.
146. In Bhajan Singh alias Harbhajan Singh Vs.
State of Haryana, (2011)7 SCC 421, the Apex Court held
74 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [75]
that while Section 157 Cr.P.C. mandates that the police
must send a copy of the FIR to the Area Magistrate
forthwith, a delay in doing so does not by itself destroy the
credibility of the case of the prosecution. It was held that
such a delay may reflect a lack of promptness or care on the
part of the investigating agency, but does not automatically
imply that the FIR was fabricated or that the investigation
was unfair. The Apex Court held that the law recognizes
that delays can happen due to the circumstances of the
case, such as the number of victims or the complexities of
the investigation, and such delays may be reasonable.
However, an unexplained or inordinate delay can give rise to
a suspicion.
147. The argument that no entry was made as regards
the alleged detention of A2 at police post Khairpur is also
devoid of merit.
148. The aforesaid issues can be a result of defective
investigation at best, for which no benefit would go to the
accused unless the defect goes to the root of the matter.
One has to bear in mind that at the relevant time, the
police, the health authorities, the administration, the family
of the deceased and others, had gone into a tizzy and minor
lapses would, therefore, not cause any dent in the case of
the prosecution.
75 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [76]
149. In the case of Arvind Kumar alias Nemichand
and others Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2022)16 SCC 732,
the Apex Court held that there is subtle difference between
a defective investigation, and one brought forth by a
calculated and deliberate action or inaction. A defective
investigation, per-se would not enure to the benefit of the
accused unless it goes to the root of the very case of the
prosecution being fundamental in nature. It was held that
while dealing with a defective investigation, a Court of law is
expected to sift the evidence available and find out the truth
on the principle that every case involves a journey towards
truth. It was held that there should not be any pedantic
approach either by the prosecution or by the Court as a
case involves an element of law rather than morality.
150. The aforesaid principle had also been stated in
the cases of Ram Bali Vs. State of UP, (2004)10 SCC 598,
Dhanaj Singh alias Shera and others Vs. State of Punjab,
(2004)3 SCC 654 and C. Muniappan Vs. State of Tamil
Nadu, (2010)9 SCC 567. In C. Muniappan’s case (supra),
it was held that there may be highly defective investigation
in a case. However, it is to be examined as to whether there
is any lapse by the I.O. and whether due to such lapse any
benefit should be given to the accused. It was held that if
primacy is given to designed or negligent investigation or to
the omissions and lapses by perfunctory investigation, the
76 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [77]
faith and confidence of the people in the criminal justice
administration would be eroded. It was held that where
there has been negligence on the part of the investigating
agency or omissions etc. which resulted in defective
investigation, there is a legal obligation on the part of the
Court to examine the prosecution evidence de-hors such
lapses, carefully, to find out whether the said evidence is
reliable or not and to what extent it is reliable and as to
whether such lapses affected the object of finding out the
truth. It was held that the investigation, was, therefore, not
the solitary area for judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial and
that the conclusion of the trial in the case cannot be
allowed to depend solely on the probity of investigation.
151. In fact, there are a catena of judgments on the
said issue only a few of them have been referred to in the
preceding paragaraphs.
152. If one examines the statement of PW30-DSP Vijay
Singh closely, it emerges that a lot of activities were going
on at the relevant time and, therefore, small re-misses
would not cause any dent in the case of the prosecution.
153. This Court, as already observed, has found the
statements of PW3-Anshul Chhatrapati, PW5-Aridaman,
PW16-HC Amarpal and PW17-HC Dharam Chand to be
trustworthy.
77 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [78]
154. Under the circumstances, the delay in delivery of
the special report to the Magistrate, the non recording of the
factum of A2 having been detained at PS Khairpur, there
being no mention of the time of arrest of A2 in the arrest
memo, do not go to the root of the matter and do not,
therefore, cause a dent in the case of the prosecution.
155. The non-recording of the statement of Ram
Chander Chhatrapati in Civil Hospital, Sirsa, also does not
cause a dent in the case of the prosecution. The MLR (Ex.
PW6/A) shows that Ram Chander Chhatrapati was wheeled
into the emergency of Civil Hospital, Sirsa at 8.15 p.m. It
was recorded that the patient was conscious and was in
agony. Admittedly, he was referred to PGI Rohtak after
about one and half hour of his arrival in Government
Hospital, Sirsa. In such a short time, though ruqa had been
sent, a statement could not have been recorded. It was
deposed by PW30-Vijay Singh that when he reached
Government Hospital, Sirsa, the patient had already been
referred to PGI, Rohtak.
156. One aspect, which heeds to be mentioned here is
that, it has come on record that one SI Ram Chander had
recorded the statement of Ram Chander Chhatrapati in PGI,
Rohtak on 26.10.2002. However, this statement has not
been brought on record by the prosecution. It was stated by
PW3-Anshul Chhatrapati that Ram Chander Chhatrapati
78 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [79]
told SI Ram Chander that he had been attacked in
pursuance to a conspiracy hatched by the Dera Head (A1)
and A4. He also stated that when the statement was
perused by PW3-Anshul, he found that the name of A1 was
not there and when he enquired from SI Ram Chander, he
stated as to why he was being put in a spot (Hame kyun
marwate ho). This statement has not seen the light of the
day. Strangely, SI Ram Chander was also given up by the
prosecution as being `unnecessary’. However, the relevance
of this statement would, at best, be as regards A1 and,
therefore, it shall be discussed at the relevant stage.
157. Another argument was raised that the first
informant was stated to be Aridaman, who was 13 years old
at the relevant time and that the statement of Anshul could
have been recorded, is again devoid of merit. A 13 years old
boy is reasonably sensible and competent to state about the
facts of an incident, which he had witnessed. Notably, PW3-
Anshul Chhatrapati had accompanied his father to the
hospital and, therefore, the action of PW30-Vijay Singh, in
recording the statement of PW5-Aridaman cannot be said to
be suffering from any casualness or a deliberate act. The
argument that the statement of daughter of Ram Chander
Chhatrapati namely Shreyasi was not recorded, does not
also carry any weight because the number of statements
and the quantity of evidence is hardly of any relevance and
79 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [80]
even one statement, if found to be truthful and consistent
would be sufficient to nail the accused.
158. As regards the argument about inconsistencies in
the statements of the witnesses qua the rough site plan or
the place of occurrence, the statements have to be
examined as a whole and parts of the statements cannot be
read in isolation. The consistent stand was that Ram
Chander Chhatrapati had been called from the side of his
house, from where the wall was broken and he followed by
his two sons, had gone out from the said portion and it was
there that he was shot at. Even PW16 and PW17 had
referred about the same spot and, therefore, some amount
of shakiness in the cross-examination would not impeach
the credit of eyewitnesses.
159. An argument was also raised that there was no
occasion for PW30-DSP Vijay Singh to have recorded the
statement of PW5-Aridaman at the Hanuman Mandir at
about 10 p.m. on 24.10.2002 when the police post Khairpur
was on the way to the Hanuman Mandir from the house of
Ram Chander Chhatrapati. This argument also does not
raise any eyebrow as it is difficult to decipher as to what
may have happened at the relevant time and why the
statement was recorded at the Hanuman Mandir and not at
the police post. It has already been stated by this Court that
such minor issues will not affect the credibility of the case
80 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [81]
of the prosecution, more so when the statements of the two
eyewitnesses have been found to inspire confidence.
160. An argument was also raised that Dr. Jai
Prakash Chaudhary, who had treated the patient at General
Hospital, Sirsa, had not been examined though PW43-Dr.
Armandeep Singh, who had investigated the case from the
CBI and stated that it had come in the statement of Dr. Jai
Prakash Chaudhary that when he asked Ram Chander
Chhatrapati in the emergency about his well being, he
stated that he had been shot at by someone, but did not
disclose the name of any person, who had attempted to kill
him. It was argued that this witness was wrongly given up
as being unnecessary. In the considered opinion of this
Court, this argument would also not come to aid of A2 and
A3, since the other Doctor, namely, Dr. Dale Singh had
been examined as PW6 and further, as already held, the
statements of PW3 and PW5 have been found to be
trustworthy.
161. Another argument which was raised was that
since no test identification parade had been conducted, the
identification of A2 and A3, for the first time in the witness
box, cannot be accepted. It was argued that no facial
features, complexion, height etc. had been mentioned either
by PW3 or PW5 and, therefore, it was incumbent upon the
81 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [82]
investigating agency to get a test identification parade
conducted.
162. This argument is also devoid of merit. It has to be
borne in mind that at the time of the incident, both PW3
and PW5 had an occasion to clearly see the assailants and
even their names were given by them. Upon having been
apprehended, their names had been found to be the same.
Further, A3 was apprehended at the spot. He also, in his
disclosure statement, named A2. Under the circumstances,
the non holding of a test identification parade would not be
fatal to the case of the prosecution. The trial Court dealt
with the said argument in paragraph 112 of its judgment in
detail. It was rightly held that even PW16-HC Amar Pal and
PW17-HC Dharam Chand, had an occasion to have a close
look at the assailants and had also apprehended A2 at the
spot. They had also deposed that the person, who had been
apprehended at the spot, had given his name as Kuldeep
Singh. The trial Court, therefore, rightly held that the non
holding of a test identification parade had not caused any
dent in the case of the prosecution.
163. In the case of Dana Yadav Vs. State of Bihar,
2002(4) RCR (Crl.) 314, the Apex Court held that failure to
hold a test identification parade does not make the evidence
of identification in Court inadmissible. Rather, the same is
very much admissible in law. A word of caution was,
82 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [83]
however, sounded that identification of an accused by a
witness for the first time in Court should not form the basis
of conviction unless it is corroborated by his previous
identification. It was held that a previous identification in a
test identification parade was a check valve to the evidence
of identification in the Court of an accused by a witness
and the same is a rule of prudence and not law. In the
present case, as already stated, it was practically not
identification for the first time in the witness box, but the
names of the assailants had surfaced at the very initial
stage, with one of the assailants have been apprehended at
the spot.
164. A lot of emphasis was laid on the issue that the
bullets alleged to have been recovered during the post
mortem examination were never examined by the Forensic
Science Laboratory. It was argued that when the containers
containing the bullets were opened before the trial Court,
they contained the seals of AIIMS (All India Institute of
Medical Sciences), meaning thereby that the containers had
never been opened in the FSL. It was argued that PW28-Dr.
L.S. Yadav, Assistant Director, FSL, had deposed that he
had appended his signatures on the bullets, which is not
possible.
165. To consider the aforesaid argument, the articles
exhibited during the course of evidence, were duly
83 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [84]
summoned and examined by the Court and an opportunity
was also given to learned counsel to examine the same.
Learned counsel also examined the articles in Court. Before
addressing the said argument, we would have to go through
the statements of PW27-Dr. KPS Kushwaha, who at the
relevant time was posted as Assistant Director (Serology),
FSL, Madhuban and PW28-L.S. Yadav, who at the relevant
time was posted as Senior Scientific Officer (Ballistic) in
FSL, Madhuban. PW27 stated that on 8.04.2003, four
sealed parcels had been received in the Serology Division
from the Ballistic division of the laboratory. One parcel
Mark-3 contained one bullet and they were examined for
the presence of blood.
166. PW28 stated that on 11.11.2002, five sealed
parcels were received and on 02.12.2002, two more sealed
parcels were received. It was stated that seals on the parcels
were intact and tallied with the specimen seals as supplied
by the forwarding authorities. Here the relevant parcel was
Parcel-3, which contained 1.32″ fired bullet, which had first
been sent to the Serology Division and then examined in the
Ballistic Division. He stated that the said bullet had been
marked as BC/2 by him. He also stated that Parcel-6
contained .32″ fired bullet stated to have been taken out of
the body, which had been marked as BC/1 by him. He
deposed that both bullets had been examined by him. He
84 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [85]
proved his report and then stated that when the bullets
were opened in the Court, that the fired cartridges cases
bear engraving of the case details and the marking C1 to C5
and also had his signatures. He also stated that parcel No.7
had two seals of AIIMS Hospital and when the container
was opened, it contained 1.32″ fired bullet, which had been
marked as BC/1 by him and also had his signatures. These
signatures were not found on the bullets and it was stated
by learned counsel that this itself proves that the bullets
had not been examined in FSL.
167. This argument is not worthy of acceptance. In so
far as seals of AIIMS are concerned, it was observed in
Court that there were multiple seals on the articles. The
possibility that no seal had been removed and the cover had
been cut from the side and then resealed by different
agencies cannot be ruled out. Still further, there is no
occasion for this Court to disbelieve the statements of such
senior Officers, who deposed in Court on oath. They duly
stated that they had duly examined the fire arms and the
bullets in FSL. The bullets were seen in Court at that time
not only by the witness but also by the Public Prosecutor,
the defence Counsel and the Presiding Officer. Today, after
so many years have gone by, these arguments do not cut
any ice. These arguments would be more relevant at the
stage of trial, when the case property and articles are
85 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [86]
opened and not years after that. In fact, if one delves into
the matter deeply, it appears that signatures were said to
have been appended on the containers and not on the
bullets because signatures can never be appended on
bullets. Even otherwise, the statements of PW12-SI
Devinder, PW30-DSP Vijay Singh and PW34-Jaipal Singh,
as regards the sealing of parcels and their transportation
etc., do not raise any eyebrow. The said aspect was also
considered by the trial Court in detail in paragraphs 117 to
119 of its judgment. Having gone through the said findings
in detail, coupled with the ocular and scientific evidence,
this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the same.
168. A lot of emphasis was also laid on the size of the
recovered bullet. It was argued that the bullet could not fit
into the barrel of the revolver and, therefore, there was no
question of the same having been fired from the said
revolver. This argument is also devoid of merit and is
rejected, keeping in view the trustworthy statements of
PW27 and PW28 as also PW30. It also has to be borne in
mind that the revolver was of .32 bore i.e. the bore had a
diametre of .32″. .32″comes to 8.1 mm or .81 centimetres. It
cannot, therefore, be said that the bullets were of a size
which could not have fit into the barrel.
169. Even otherwise, as argued by learned counsel
representing CBI, a bullet may get deformed upon coming in
86 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [87]
contact with a hard surface and while entering the body. It
had also been argued that the bullets used in the
commission of offence were lapua bullets, which are
comparatively softer bullets and, therefore, there is a higher
possibility of the same getting deformed due to impact and
heat. This argument is more probable and, therefore,
deserves to be accepted.
170. It was argued that it was the clear case of the
prosecution that it was A2, who had opened fired at Ram
Chander Chhatrapati and immediately thereafter, they sat
on a scooter and attempted to escape and that at this time,
A2 was apprehended whereas A3 managed to escape. It
was argued that when A2 had opened fire, it was not
explained as to how the firearm was given to A3 and was
later recovered from him. It was argued that it was very
strange that after firing upon Ram Chander Chhatrapati,
A2, if the case of the prosecution is to be believed, handed
over the firearm and the live cartridges etc. to A3. Though
this argument appears to be attractive at the first blush, the
same is also devoid of merit. Coming first to the live
cartridges, they could very well have been with A3 from the
very beginning. In so far as the firearm is concerned, how it
was transferred to A3 cannot be called into question
because that may be a part of the plan or the firearm may
have been kept in the diggy of the scooter. If one examines
87 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [88]
the contents of the FIR which was recorded on the basis of
the statement of PW5-Aridaman, it emerges that after shots
had been fired, PW3 and PW5 shouted `bachao bachao’,
whereupon 2-3 policemen came there and apprehended A2,
whereas A3 managed to escape. The sequence of events
shows that all this happened in few minutes and not in few
seconds and, therefore, there was sufficient time for A2 to
hand over the revolver to A3. Moreover, such arguments are
based more on presumptions and do not cause any dent in
the case of the prosecution.
171. It was also argued that as per newspaper report
Ex.DA/1, A3 had been arrested by the police on 25.10.2002
and a revolver had been recovered from him. It was argued
that PW19-Vishwajeet had published the said news item
correctly and that it had been verified by him from police
officials. It was also argued that even PW13-Dewan Singh,
who was a part of the team, which had laid a naka on
26.10.2002 had stated that the revolver had already been
recovered on 25.10.2002. This argument also does not find
favour with the Court. First of all, no reliance can be placed
upon newspaper reports. Why the said report was published
and by whom and at whose instance, is not known.
Occasional and isolated lines cannot be picked up from
statements. They may be the result of a slip of tongue, non-
understanding of the question, typographical error and so
88 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [89]
many other things. All statements have to be considered as
a whole. The trial Court also dealt with the said issue in
paragraph 116 of the judgment. It was rightly held that
though police officials had informed him and other media
people about the recovery of the revolver, mobile phone etc.,
the same were not shown to them. PW16-HC Amar Pal,
PW17-HC Dharam Chand and PW30-DSP Vijay Singh, duly
stated that A3 had been apprehended at a naka on
26.10.2002 in their presence. Under the circumstances, the
trial Court rightly rejected the said argument. No illegality is
found in the said finding warranting interference by this
Court.
ROLE OF A4
172. Coming to A4 (Krishan Lal), the revolver used in
the commission of offence was found to be his licenced
weapon. PW14-Jagjit Singh, Arms Licencing Clerk, deposed
that arms licence No.908 (Ex.PW15/C) for a .32 bore
revolver had been issued in the name of A4 son of Bhagwan
Dass, resident of Dera Sacha Sauda. The revolver No.
13751-FG was entered in his name, the same having been
purchased from Field Gun Factory, Kanpur. It was also
stated that the licence was duly valid at the time of incident.
As per the entry in the records, the revolver had been
purchased on 28.06.2002. It is not the case of A4 that the
said weapon had either been lost or stolen at any point of
89 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [90]
time prior to the occurrence. Further, no explanation, worth
its name, was given as to how the licenced weapon of A4
came into the possession of the assailants, who had
committed the murder of Ram Chander Chhatrapati. An
attempt was made by the defence by examining DW4-
Nachhattar Pal, who stated that some police officials had
taken away the licenced revolver of A4 on 25.02.2002 in his
presence. However, this testimony was rightly discarded by
the trial Court as being an afterthought because at no point
of time did A4 report the same to any authority. It has to be
borne in mind that even if some police official takes away
the licenced weapon of a person without giving any reason,
the said person would immediately report the matter to the
higher authorities. In his cross-examination DW4-
Nachhattar Pal stated that no such application had been
moved to any authority.
173. Not only this, Nachhattar Pal stated that when
the weapon was taken away by the police official, apart from
him, A4 and the police officer, no one from the public or
from the family of Krishan Lal was present, whereas A4, in
his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., stated that when
on 25.10.2002 at about 7.00 a.m., SI Vijay Singh along with
other police officials had come to his house and had taken
away his licenced revolver stating that the same had been
used in the murder of Ram Chander Chatrapati, he (A4)
90 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [91]
was threatened and thrashed by the police officials before
his family members and neighbours since he had asked for
a receipt. There is, therefore, a major contradiction in the
versions given by Nachhatar Pal and A4. Strangely, even
after having allegedly been threatened and thrashed, A4 did
not report the matter to any authority.
174. It has also come on record that A4 had earlier
instituted a complaint against Ram Chander Chhatrapati,
and in the said complaint, A4 had referred to his
association with the Dera. Under the circumstances, the
trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that A4 was a
part of the conspiracy. The argument that A4 was never
named in the FIR, is devoid of merit because the allegation
was that A4 was a part of the conspiracy and it was never
the case of the prosecution that he was present at the spot.
It has also come on record that two other witnesses namely
Kala Singh and Gurcharan Singh could have deposed about
the association of A4 with the Dera, but they were won over
and as such had to be given up. Under the circumstances,
as stated above, no fault can be found with the findings
recorded by the trial Court.
ROLE OF A1
91 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [92]
175. Now we proceed to examine as to whether the
trial Court rightly held that A1 was a part of the criminal
conspiracy hatched to eliminate Ram Chander Chhatrapati.
176. Section 120-A of the Indian Penal Code defines
criminal conspiracy and Section 120-B lays down the
punishment for the same. Section 120-A states that when
two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done, an
illegal act or an act which is not illegal by illegal means,
such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy.
177. The expression `criminal conspiracy’ was aptly
explained by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Major
E.G. Barsay Vs. State of Bombay, AIR 1961 SC 1762.
Thereafter, while referring to the aforesaid concept, as
explained in Major E.G. Barsay‘s case (supra), the Hon’ble
Apex Court held in the case of Bilal Hajar alias Abdul
Hamid Vs. State, (2019)17 SCC 451, that in order to
constitute a conspiracy, meeting of minds of two or more
persons to do an illegal act or an act by illegal means is a
must. It was held that it was the sine qua non for invoking
the plea of conspiracy against the accused. It was held that
it was, however, not necessary that all the conspirators
must know each and every detail of the conspiracy, which is
being hatched nor would it be necessary to prove their
active part/role in such meeting.
92 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [93]
178. It is well known that a criminal conspiracy is
always hatched in secrecy and is never an open affair to
anyone much less the public at large. It was held by the
Hon’ble Apex Court that it is for this reason, its existence
coupled with the object for which it was hatched, has to be
gathered on the basis of circumstantial evidence, such as
the conduct of the conspirators, the chain of circumstances
leading to holding of such meeting till the commission of
offence by applying the principle applicable for appreciating
the circumstantial evidence for holding the accused guilty
for commission of an offence.
179. In the case of Yogesh alias Sachin Jagdish
Joshi Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2008)10 SCC 394, the
Hon’ble Apex Court held as under:-
“20. The basic ingredients of the offence of
criminal conspiracy are: (i) an agreement
between two or more persons;
(ii) the agreement must relate to doing or
causing to be done either (a) an illegal act; or
(b) an act which is not illegal in itself but is
done by illegal means. It is, therefore, plain
that meeting of minds of two or more persons
for doing or causing to be done an illegal act
or an act by illegal means is sine qua non of
93 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [94]criminal conspiracy. Yet, as observed by this
Court in Shivnarayan Laxminarayan Joshi &
Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1980)2 SCC
465, a conspiracy is always hatched in secrecy
and it is impossible to adduce direct evidence
of the common intention of the conspirators.
Therefore, the meeting of minds of the
conspirators can be inferred from the
circumstances proved by the prosecution, if
such inference is possible.
21. In Mohammad Usman Mohammad
Hussain Maniyar & Ors. Vs. State of
Maharashtra, (1981)2 SCC 443, it was
observed that for an offence under Section
120B, the prosecution need not necessarily
prove that the perpetrators expressly agree to
do and/or cause to be done the illegal act, the
agreement may be proved by necessary
implication.
22. In Kehar Singh & Ors. Vs. State (Delhi
Administration), (1988)3 SCC 609, the gist of
the offence of the conspiracy has been
brought out succinctly in the following words:
“The gist of the offence of conspiracy
then lies, not in doing the act, or94 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [95]effecting the purpose for which the
conspiracy is formed, nor in attempting
to do them, nor in inciting others to do
them, but in the forming of the scheme
or agreement between the parties.
Agreement is essential. Mere knowledge,
or even discussion, of the plan is not, per
se, enough.”
23. Again in State of Maharashtra & Ors. Vs.
Som Nath Thapa & Ors., (1996)4 SCC 659, a
three-Judge Bench of this Court held that to
establish a charge of conspiracy knowledge
about indulgence in either an illegal act or a
legal act by illegal means is necessary. In
some cases, intent of unlawful use being made
of the goods or services in question may be
inferred from the knowledge itself. This apart,
the prosecution has not to establish that a
particular unlawful use was intended, so long
as the goods or service in question could not
be put to any lawful use.
24. More recently, in State (NCT of Delhi) Vs.
Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru, (2005)11 SCC
600, making exhaustive reference to several
decisions on the point, including in State
Through Superintendent of Police, CBI/SIT
95 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [96]
Vs. Nalini & Ors., (1999)5 SCC 253,
Venkatarama Reddi, J. observed thus:
“Mostly, the conspiracies are proved by
the circumstantial evidence, as the
conspiracy is seldom an open affair.
Usually both the existence of the
conspiracy and its objects have to be
inferred from the circumstances and the
conduct of the accused (per Wadhwa, J.
in Nalini's case at page 516). The well
known rule governing circumstantial
evidence is that each and every
incriminating circumstance must be
clearly established by reliable evidence
and “the circumstances proved must
form a chain of events from which the
only irresistible conclusion about the
guilt of the accused can be safely drawn
and no other hypothesis against the guilt
is possible.” (Tanviben Pankajkumar case
, SCC page 185, para 45). G.N. Ray, J. in
Tanibeert Pankajkumar observed that
this Court should not allow the suspicion
to take the place of legal proof.”
25. Thus, it is manifest that the meeting of
minds of two or more persons for doing an
illegal act or an act by illegal means is sine
qua non of the criminal conspiracy but it may
not be possible to prove the agreement
between them by direct proof. Nevertheless,
96 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [97]
existence of the conspiracy and its objective
can be inferred from the surrounding
circumstances and the conduct of the
accused. But the incriminating circumstances
must form a chain of events from which a
conclusion about the guilt of the accused
could be drawn. It is well settled that an
offence of conspiracy is a substantive offence
and renders the mere agreement to commit an
offence punishable even if an offence does not
take place pursuant to the illegal agreement.”
180. Keeping the aforestated principles in mind, we
proceed to examine the issue. A1 (Baba Gurmeet Ram
Rahim Singh), was the Chief of the Dera Sacha Sauda. As
was stated during the course of arguments, the Dera is a
socio spiritual organization having a large following. It came
in the supplementary report dated 28.09.2002 submitted by
the District & Sessions Judge, Sirsa under the directions of
the High Court (Ex.DW12/1) that it had many rival groups
as well, both within and outside the Dera.
181. It all started in May 2002, when an anonymous
letter was addressed to the Prime Minister of India, with a
copy endorsed to the Chief Justice of this Court, making
allegations of sexual harassment of Sadhvis in the Dera by
A1. Two such letters were also received by PW1-Balwant
97 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [98]
Singh and PW2-Raja Ram Handiaya, both members of the
Tarksheel Society. The word Tarksheel refers to
rational/logical and refers to a person or a thinking, which
is based upon facts and science as well as logic, rather than
on traditions and blind faith. Thereafter, the copies of these
letters were published in various newspapers, including
Amar Ujala on 17.05.2002 and in Punjab Kesri on
19.05.2002. It was so stated by PW1-Balwant Singh, PW2-
Raja Ram Handiaya, PW3-Anshul Chhatrapati and PW5-
Aridaman. A report about the distribution of this letter was
also published on 30.05.2002 by Ram Chander Chhatrapati
in his evening Tabloid `Pura Sach’ as stated by PW3-Anshul
Chhatrapati and produced on record as Mark-PW3/1.
182. This Court took suo motu cognizance of the said
anonymous letter on 28.05.2002 and CRM-M-26994-2002
was registered. While the aforesaid matter was pending a
Division Bench of this Court, CRM-M-7931-M of 2003 was
instituted by Anshul Chhatrapati alleging defective
investigation by the Haryana Police and CRM-M-2478-M of
2003 was instituted by one Pritpal. All the three petitions
were disposed of by the Division Bench vide order dated
10.11.2003. It was duly observed that inquiry or
investigation in the case had not been of the desirable
standards of investigation. It was observed that lack of
ability of the investigating agency to focus attention on
98 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [99]
important aspects of the investigation and permitting
certain material evidence to vanish ex-facie was a matter
leading to lack of public faith in the fairness of such
investigation. It was observed that this tentative view was
based on the averments made in the petitions and the
record produced before the Division Bench. It was held that
such view would be inconsequential when the trial based
upon the investigation in accordance with law began.
Ultimately, the investigation in FIR Nos. 312 of 2002 of P.S.
Sadar Thanesar, 685 of 2002 of P.S. Sirsa (the present case)
and 395 of 2003 of P.S. City Thanesar was ordered to be
transferred to CBI. The Division Bench also observed that
the incidents of murder were daring examples of their kind
and allegations had been made that they were at the behest
of the Dera. It was held that it was equally important and
in the interest of the accused persons as well as the Dera
that the allegations and insinuations, if not true, must be
put to an end by a specialist investigating agency i.e. the
CBI at the earliest. Under these circumstances, directions
were issued to the CBI for a time bound investigation.
183. It had been the consistent stand of the sons of
Ram Chander Chhatrapati, namely, PW3-Anshul
Chhatrapati and PW5-Aridaman that their father had been
murdered at the instance of the Dera. In the FIR
(Ex.PW30/4), which was on the statement of PW5-
99 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [100]
Aridaman, it was stated that the reason of grudge was that
his father was a journalist and had been publishing news
relating to Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa, because of which, he
had been receiving continuous death threats from the side
of the Dera. It was stated that he suspected that the attack
on his father had been got done by the Dera Sacha Sauda
people. Notably, A1 was not named at this stage. Not only
this, A1 was not named by any of the co-accused in their
disclosure statements as well.
184. Even after the CBI had taken over the
investigation, A1 had never been named. On 26.12.2006,
PW31-Khatta Singh came into the picture. Khatta Singh is
alleged to be the driver of A1. His statement was recorded in
RC-8 (Ranjit Singh’s murder case). In his statement
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in the said case, Khatta
Singh stated that A1 long with A4 and four others had
conspired on 16.06.2002 to commit the murder of Ranjit
Singh (Ex.PW31/DF). Notably, even at this stage, he did
not level any allegations against A1 as regards his
involvement in the present case.
185. He then moved an application dated 29.03.2007
(Ex.PW31/DA) to the jurisdictional Magistrate at Ambala to
record his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. alleging
that the CBI was pressurizing him to falsely implicate A1.
In this application, he stated that he was a staunch devotee
100 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [101]
of the Dera and that no illegal or immoral things or criminal
acts were committed in the Dera and that the organization
was very pious, social and a religious institution, fully
devoted to the service of mankind. It was averred that he
had been called by the Investigating Officer of the CBI and
he had intimidated and pressurized him to make an adverse
statement in order to falsely implicate A1. It was also
averred that they were compelling him to make a statement
against A1 and other devotees of the Dera in connection
with Ranjit Singh’s murder case. It was averred that he had
been threatened that if he did not do so, he would be
implicated in the said case/cases. This application came to
be dismissed on 30.03.2007, whereafter CRR-06 of 2007
(Ex.DW2/1) was instituted by Khatta Singh before the
Sessions Court, Ambala. In the meanwhile, in April, 2007,
Khatta Singh also moved an application dated 12.04.2007
(Ex.PW31/D2) to the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala
and letter dated 26.04.2007 (Ex.PW31/DC) to the
Superintendent of Police, Sirsa, complaining that the CBI
was threatening him to implicate A1 and sought protection
from the CBI. Such a statement was also recorded by the
Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sirsa (Ex.PW31/DD), who
also stepped into the witness box as DW6.
186. On 16.04.2007, while the Division Bench of this
Court was monitoring the investigation, since investigation
101 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [102]
had not been completed, the Division Bench reprimanded
the CBI and ordered that the investigation be completed by
25.05.2007. An undertaking was given by CBI that the
investigation would be concluded by 25.05.2007. On
28.05.2007, CBI made a statement before the High Court
that field investigation was over and the charge sheet would
be filed by 31.07.2007. Till this time also, the name of A1
had not surfaced.
187. On 21.06.2007, the statement of Khatta Singh
was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex.PW31/A). It is
at this point of time that Khatta Singh, for the first time,
almost 5 years after the incident, alleged that on
23.10.2002, he had travelled with A1 to Jalandhar for a
Satsang and when they returned to the Dera in the evening,
A2 to A4 showed him the Pura Sach publication of
23.10.2002 which provoked A1 and at this stage, he
directed A2 to A4 to eliminate Ram Chander Chhatrapati.
188. Pursuant to the aforesaid statement, the
statement of Khatta Singh was recorded under Section 164
Cr.P.C. before the Duty Magistrate at Chandigarh
(Ex.PW31/B).
189. Thereafter, a supplementary charge sheet was
filed by CBI on 30.07.2007 naming A1 as an accused.
102 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [103]
Accordingly, charges were framed on 12.12.2008 and the
charge under Section 120-B was framed against A1.
190. During the course of the trial, Khatta Singh
appeared as PW31, but turned hostile. He deposed that CBI
had coerced him to falsely implicate A1 by putting him
under the fear that he would be implicated in both murder
cases. Notably, his evidence went on from 19.05.2012 to
20.04.2013 as he was extensively cross-examined by CBI.
191. On 16.09.2017, Khatta Singh filed an application
under Section 311 Cr.P.C. stating that since A1 had been
convicted on 25.08.2017 in one case (RC-5), he had
mustered the courage to disclose a truthful account of the
events in the present case. This application was dismissed
by the Special Court, CBI on 06.01.2018, whereafter CRR-
274 of 2018 was preferred by CBI which was allowed by a
Single Bench of this Court on 23.04.2018 with a direction
that both versions of PW31 would be considered. SLP filed
against the said order was dismissed.
192. Under the circumstances, PW31-Khatta Singh
was recalled for re-examination. He then supported the
version of CBI and reiterated his allegations against A1.
193. We shall first examine as to whether the solitary
witness to the alleged conspiracy was a reliable witness. If
we examine the sequence of events, the answer to the same
103 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [104]
is in the negative. The trial Court, in the considered opinion
of this Court, did not examine this aspect of the matter from
the correct perspective. We are conscious of the fact that A1
is a public figure. Such public figures are known to have
admirers and enemies alike. Such public figures are always
in the news. At times for good reasons and at times for bad
ones. It is well known that A1 has a huge following. In our
country, religion, caste, sects, play an extremely important
role. Lives are given and taken in the name of religion,
caste, sects etc. Disputes on Temples, Masjids,
Gurudwaras, are not something new for us. Many of the
followers of faiths, sects etc., can be termed to be `fanatics’.
A fanatic, as per the Oxford Dictionary is a person filled
with excessive and single minded zeal, especially for an
extreme religious and a political cause. It is not unknown
that followers cross limits and break laws, when it comes to
their faith. The question, which was required to be
examined by the trial Court was, as to whether there was
overwhelming evidence against A1 and as to whether it
could have been a step taken by his staunch followers.
Notably, there was no discussion on this aspect. The first
question shall be examined in the succeeding paragraphs.
In so far as the second question is concerned, the
discussion in the preceding paragaraphs leads this Court to
104 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [105]
the conclusion that there is a greater possibility of A2, A3
and A4 having acted on their accord.
194. In the considered opinion of this Court,
absolutely no reliance can be placed on a witness like
Khatta Singh. He chose to remain silent for a number of
years and then kept on tossing from one side to the other
like a ping pong ball. Even on 26.12.2006, when he opened
up for the first time, he did not implicate A1 in the present
case and talked only about Ranjit Singh murder case. If he
was under threat, it is not understood as to why he was
under threat only in this case and not in Ranjit Singh case
in which he stated that a conspiracy had been hatched by
A1. Under the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to
believe his version that he was under threat from the Dera
as a result of which, he had not deposed earlier. This Court
will not hesitate in holding that on the contrary, it appears
that he was coerced by CBI into making a statement as CBI
was under pressure to conclude the investigation. It was so
stated by Khatta Singh in many of his applications. It is a
matter of grave concern that a premier Investigating Agency
adopted this kind of methodology with a view to succeed in
the matter. The endeavour should have been to go to the
bottom of the matter and bring out the truth.
195. In the case of Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Punjab,
(2009)3 SCC 391, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that when a
105 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [106]
witness completely changes his version on all aspects, no
part of his evidence is reliable. A similar view was taken in
the case of Vikramjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2006)12
SCC 306 and many other cases. It was held in the case of
Sunil Kumar Shambhu Dayal Gupta (Dr.) and others Vs.
State of Maharashtra, (2010)13 SCC 657, that a witness
who unjustifiably does not reveal the allegations at the first
opportunity is not reliable. In the case of Vadivelu Thevar
Vs. State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614, the Hon’ble Apex
Court held that a witness, who is neither wholly reliable nor
wholly unreliable, requires corroboration in material
particulars. In this case, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that
oral testimony may be classified into three categories
namely i) wholly reliable; ii) wholly unreliable and iii) neither
wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. PW31, for sure, falls in
the second category. He does not fall under the first
category, under any circumstance. At best, even if the case
of the prosecution is accepted, he would fall in the third
category. Even then, the Apex Court held that in this
category, the Court has to circumspect and has to look for
corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony
direct or circumstantial.
196. It has repeatedly come on record through Khatta
Singh that he was being threatened that he would be
implicated in the murder cases, if he did not depose against
106 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [107]
A1. The question, which, therefore, arises is as to whether
he was an accomplice. In the case of Lachhi Ram Vs. State
of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 792, the Hon’ble Apex Court,
while referring to the judgment in the case of Sarwan Singh
Vs. State of Punjab, (1957)SCR 953, held that the
evidence of an approver, to be accepted, must satisfy two
tests. The first test would be that his evidence must show
that he is a reliable witness, which of course is a test that
is common to all witnesses. The second test, which will still
remain to be applied in the case of an approver, was as to
whether there was sufficient corroboration to his evidence.
If we apply the said tests to the testimony of Khatta Singh,
the inevitable conclusion that we arrive at is that he was
not a reliable witness nor was there sufficient corroboration
to his statement and, therefore, his testimony cannot be
relied upon.
197. It is often said that Courts and Judges should
not be swayed by media reports and the public attention
which a matter receives. Matters are required to be decided
strictly as per law. It has to be borne in mind that the
principles of criminal jurisprudence require proving the
guilt of an accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is well
settled that the moment a doubt arises, its benefit has to go
to the accused. What would be reasonable doubt, has also
been explained by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
107 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [108]
Goverdhan (supra). It was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court
that `reasonable doubt’ must be based on substantive and
rational grounds and not on speculative, imaginary, fanciful
or trivial apprehension. The Court emphasized that the
standard of proof in criminal law is `beyond reasonable
doubt’ and not `beyond all doubt’. It was explained by the
Apex Court that the reasonable doubt must be free from
suppositional speculation, which must not be result of
minute emotional detailing, and the doubt must be actual
and substantial and not merely vague apprehension. In the
considered opinion of this Court, the prosecution was not
able to prove its case against A1 beyond reasonable doubt,
whereas it was able to do so in the case of A2 to A4. It is a
settled principle of law that where two possibilities, one of
commission of crime and the other of innocence, are
reasonably possible, the accused is entitled to the benefit of
doubt. It was so held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case
of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharasthra,
(1984)4 SCC 116. Notably, this three Judges Bench
judgment is also the leading and the most celebrated
judgment as regards the principles required to be followed
in the cases of circumstantial evidence.
198. Another extremely important aspect of the matter
is the non-examination of SI-Ram Chander, who had
recorded the statement of Ram Chander Chhatrapati in PGI,
108 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [109]
Rohtak on 26.10.2002. Whereas, the family of the deceased
Ram Chander Chhatrapati had been alleging that he had
deliberately not recorded the name of A1 in the statement,
the defence has, with all the vehemence at its command,
argued that he was deliberately not examined for, the name
of A1 had not figured in the statement of Ram Chander
Chhatrapati. It is extremely strange that this very
important witness was given up by the prosecution as
`being unnecessary’. One could still have understood had
the witness been given up as having been `won over’. In the
considered opinion of this Court, he was the most important
witness. In so far as A2 to A4 are concerned, this Court
has held that there was other clinching evidence against
them. In so far as A1 is concerned, since the charge is only
that of criminal conspiracy, the version of SI Ram Chander
would be of extreme importance on either side. Whereas,
one side, it may come to one’s mind that an effort was being
made to shield A1. However, this would be a pure
conjecture. The effort may have been to implicate A1, which
was not being fulfilled with the statement recorded by SI-
Ram Chander. In any case, a doubt is created in the mind
of the Court, once such an important statement is not
brought on record and such an important witness is not
examined. The benefit of the doubt necessarily has to go to
the accused.
109 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [110]
199. Not only this, the treatment record of Ram
Chander Chhatrapati, while he was in PGI, Rohtak and
which was duly produced on record during the course of
evidence as PW8/A and PW8/B, shows that his general
condition was fair and stable right from 26.10.2002 to at
least 01.11.2002. It is extremely strange that all this while,
apart from the statement of Ram Chander Chhatrapati
having been recorded on 26.10.2002 by ASI – Ram
Chander, no effort was made to record his statement. This
Court has minutely perused the treatment record. On
27.10.2002, the Doctor noted that the patient was oriented
and conscious and his general condition was fair. On
30.10.2002, his general condition was stated to be stable. A
similar opinion was recorded on 01.11.2002. On
01.11.2002, there were symptoms of shock and on
04.11.2002, his condition was noted as sick. However,
thereafter, on 06.11.2002, his condition was again noted as
fair. Even on 08.11.2002, his condition was noted as fair
and conscious at the time of discharge, when he was taken
to Apollo Hospital. It was also noted that the patient was
oriented in time, place and person. Strangely, no
application was moved all this while to seek an opinion of
the treating Doctor as to whether Ram Chander Chhatrapati
was fit to give a statement or not. This fact would go against
the investigating agency and the prosecution and not
110 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [111]
against the accused. It was for the investigating agency to
arrive at the truth and for the prosecution to bring all
evidence before the Court and not to brush anything under
the carpet.
200. Apart from the statement of Khatta Singh that he
had gone to Jalandhar on 23.10.2002 with A1, there is no
other corroborative evidence to this effect. In fact, PW46-M
Narayanan, who was the head of investigation of CBI
admitted in his cross-examination that A1’s visit to
Jalandhar on 23.10.2002 with Khatta Singh, holding of a
Satsang at Jalandhar on 23.10.2002, return to Sirsa on the
same day and Khatta Singh’s visit to Delhi on the next day
i.e. 24.10.2002 as also Khatta Singh’s allegations that he
was made to sign blank papers by the Dera people were not
verified by the CBI, during the investigation. On the
contrary, the Pura Sach edition of 27.10.2002 (Mark
PW3/17) stated that the Satsang was at Zira and not at
Jalandhar. Zira is about 150 Kms away from Jalandhar.
During the said Satsang, some cows had died after eating
the leftover food and the incident was reported in various
newspapers including Pura Sach on 27.10.2002, which
showed that there was no Satsang at Jalandhar.
201. The trial Court also erred in holding that Khatta
Singh’s testimony was corroborated by his statement
recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It is well settled that a
111 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [112]
statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is not substantive
evidence. Even otherwise, as already noticed, keeping in
view the inconsistent stand of Khatta Singh, his statement
under Section 164 Cr.P.C., recorded on 22.06.2007 at
Chandigarh, cannot be taken to be corroborative evidence.
It would be relevant to note that at that time, the revision
petition of Khatta Singh was pending in the Sessions Court
at Ambala, in which he had alleged that CBI had been
pressurizing him to implicate A1.
202. This Court is, therefore, of the firm conclusion
that the guilt of A1 had not been proved.
203. We have perused the judgments relied upon by
learned counsel representing the appellants, the CBI and
the complainant. Criminal matters are essentially decided
on their own facts, keeping in mind the broad principles of
law and the criminal jurisprudence, as referred to in the
preceding paragraphs. No straight jacket formula can ever
be laid down and, therefore, no judgment would ever
squarely cover any case. Under the circumstances, there
would be no necessity of discussing the said judgments
independently.
204. Consequently, CRA-D-270-D-2019 titled as
“Kuldeep Singh @ Kala Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation“,
CRA-D-258-D-2019 titled as “Nirmal Singh Vs. Central
112 of 113
::: Downloaded on – 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
CRA-D-240-D-2019 and other connected cases [113]
Bureau of Investigation” and CRA-D-254-D-2019 titled as
“Krishan Lal alias Kishan Lal Vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation“, are found to be devoid of merit and are
accordingly dismissed and the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence is upheld. However, CRA-D-240-D-2019
titled as “Baba Gurmeet Singh @ Maharaj Gurmeet Singh @
Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh” is allowed, the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence is set aside and the
appellant is acquitted of the charge framed against him.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
[VIKRAM AGGARWAL] [SHEEL NAGU]
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
07th March, 2026
ds
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
113 of 113
::: Downloaded on - 10-03-2026 01:24:35 :::
