Dera Chief Acquitted in Journalist's Murder Plot: HC Slams 'Ping-Pong' Witness, Upholds Shooters' Life Terms

In a dramatic turn after over two decades, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has acquitted controversial Dera Sacha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh (A1) in the 2002 murder conspiracy of journalist Ram Chander Chhatrapati, while upholding life imprisonment for the three co-accused directly involved in the shooting. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Vikram Aggarwal delivered the verdict on March 7, 2026, in appeals arising from a 2019 CBI court conviction, emphasizing that conspiracy charges under Section 120B IPC demand ironclad proof of a "meeting of minds"—proof the prosecution spectacularly failed to deliver.

The Fatal Shots That Silenced a Journalist

Sirsa-based journalist Ram Chander Chhatrapati, editor of the evening daily Pura Sach , had been publishing explosive reports alleging sexual exploitation of sadhvis by Ram Rahim at the Dera Sacha Sauda headquarters. On October 24, 2002, assailants Kuldeep Singh (A2) and Nirmal Singh (A3) allegedly shot him outside his home, naming him in the FIR lodged by his son Aridaman (PW5). Chhatrapati succumbed on November 21, 2002, in Delhi's Apollo Hospital.

Haryana Police probed initially under Sections 307/34 IPC and Arms Act provisions, later invoking Section 302 and 120B IPC. Public outcry over investigative lapses—sparked by High Court petitions from Chhatrapati's son Anshul and others—led to CBI takeover in 2003. A supplementary chargesheet in 2007 roped in Ram Rahim based on driver Khatta Singh's (PW31) claims of witnessing a conspiracy. The Panchkula CBI court convicted all four in 2019, sentencing them to life.

Defense Dismantles Prosecution: 'Fabricated Probe, Flip-Flopping Witness'

Appellants' counsels—seniors like R. Basant (for Ram Rahim), R.S. Rai (A2), Ashwani Kumar Singh (A3), and Amit Jhanji (A4)—hammered defects: suppressed genesis, no Test Identification Parade (TIP), manipulated forensics, and a "shaky" investigation. For Ram Rahim, the pivot was Khatta Singh's unreliability—he stayed silent for years, flip-flopped (hostile in trial, recalled post-2017 rape conviction), and alleged CBI coercion via blank-paper signatures. No FIR or disclosures named Ram Rahim initially; his role hinged solely on this "ping-pong" witness.

They argued A2/A3 acted independently as Dera followers enraged by exposés, not per conspiracy. Forensic mismatches (bullet sizes, seals), non-examined key witnesses (SI Ram Chander, who recorded Chhatrapati's statement), and media reports predating A3's "arrest" screamed fabrication. Precedents like Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras (unreliable witnesses need corroboration) and Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (benefit of doubt in circumstantial chains) were invoked.

CBI and complainant countered with eyewitness consistency (PWs 3,5), recovery of A4's licensed revolver, ballistic matches, and motive from Chhatrapati's Dera exposés. They defended Khatta as a reluctant insider (ex-Dera driver, castration victim), emboldened post-Ram Rahim's 2017 conviction, with Section 164 CrPC statement as prior consistency.

'No Meeting of Minds': HC Dissects Conspiracy, CBI Tactics

The High Court meticulously affirmed homicidal death via medical evidence (PWs 6-11: gunshot septicemia). Eye-witnesses (sons Anshul/PW3, Aridaman/PW5) reliably nailed A2/A3 as shooters, with A4's revolver linking him to conspiracy. Minor probe lapses ( Zahira Habibulla Sheikh allows sifting reliable evidence) didn't dent direct proof.

But for Ram Rahim? The Bench shredded the case: "Absolutey 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." Noting CBI pressure (witness applications alleging threats), non-verified claims (e.g., Ram Rahim's unproven Jalandhar trip), and non-examined SI Ram Chander (whose missing statement could've cleared conspiracy), it held: "The prosecution was not able to prove its case against A1 beyond reasonable doubt."

Drawing from Major E.G. Barsay v. State of Bombay (conspiracy needs agreement proof) and Yogesh v. State of Maharashtra (circumstantial chain must exclude innocence), the Court saw rogue followers' hand over orchestrated plot. Media glare? "Courts...should not be swayed by...public attention...principles...require proving...beyond reasonable doubt."

Court's Parting Shots: Truth Over Pressure

Key Observations

"It appears that he [Khatta Singh] was coerced by CBI into making a statement as CBI was under pressure to conclude the investigation...a matter of grave concern that a premier Investigating Agency adopted this kind of methodology."

"PW31...falls in [the wholly unreliable] category...his testimony cannot be relied upon."

"When two possibilities...are reasonably possible, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt."

The operative order: CRA-D-240-D-2019 (Ram Rahim) allowed , acquitted. Others' appeals dismissed , life terms stand (A1's to follow prior sentence). Implications? Bolsters safeguards in conspiracy cases—especially against high-profile figures—demanding witness scrutiny amid media frenzy. Followers acting independently? Viable acquittal path, as news reports echoed.

This split verdict delivers delayed justice to Chhatrapati's kin on shooters, but frees Ram Rahim, underscoring: doubt, however reasonable, trumps suspicion.