Chandigarh, March 10 -- Highlighting serious gaps in the investigation into the 2002 murder of journalist Ram Chander Chhatrapati, where Dera Sacha Sauda head Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh's involvement was alleged, the Punjab and Haryana high court has said that the guilt of the dera head is not "proved" and that the "benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused, Ram Rahim". On March 7, the HC acquitted Ram Rahim of conspiracy charges in the 2002 journalist murder case. However, the court upheld the decision to award life sentences for the three co-convicts: Krishan Lal, Nirmal Singh, and Kuldeep Singh, alias Kala. Chhatrapati was shot at point-blank range outside his house on October 24, 2002. The attack came months after his newspaper published an anonymous letter detailing the systematic sexual exploitation of sadhvis (female disciples) by the dera chief. A special CBI court in Panchkula had convicted the dera head and three others on January 17, 2019, and sentenced them to life imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.50,000. The high court bench of chief justice Sheel Nagu and justice Vikram Aggarwal in its 111-page judgment expressed grave concern about the manner the CBI adopted to "succeed in the matter". The court said that "absolutely no reliance" can be placed on a witness like Khatta Singh, who was the key witness as per prosecution as far as allegations of criminal conspiracy goes against the dera head. "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 December 26, 2006, when he opened up for the first time, he did not implicate A1 (Ram Rahim) in the present case and talked only about the 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 the Ranjit Singh case in which he stated that a conspiracy had been hatched by A1," the court said, adding that under the circumstances, the court is not inclined to believe his version. The court was referring to the 2002 murder of sect's former manager, Ranjit Singh. The high court had acquitted Ram Rahim in that case in May 2024 citing "tainted and sketchy" probe into the matter. "This court will not hesitate in holding that on the contrary, it appears that he was coerced by the CBI into making a statement as the 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," the court further recorded. Khatta Singh gave his statement five years after the murder alleging that in October 2002, he had travelled with Ram Rahim to Jalandhar for a satsang and when they returned to the dera in the evening, the dera head in his presence had directed the co-accused to eliminate Chhatrapati. After his 2007 statement to the police, he turned hostile and subsequently came forward and supported the prosecution case. The court also questioned the CBI over the non-examination of sub-inspector Ram Chander, who had recorded the statement of Chhatrapati in the PGI, Rohtak. "In the considered opinion of this Court, he was the most important witness. In so far as A2 to A4 (co-accused) 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," the court said. The court further said that even as the family has been levelling allegations that Chhatrapati had named the dera head in a statement given to the officer. "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," it added. The court also questioned the prosecution as to why no effort was made to take doctors' opinion whether Chhatrapati was fit enough to record a statement before a judicial officer. The court said that Ram Rahim was a public figure and such public figures are known to have admirers and enemies alike. "In our country, religion, caste, and sects play an extremely important role. Lives are given and taken in the name of religion, caste, sects, etc. Disputes on temples, mosques, gurdwaras, are not something new for us. Many of the followers of faiths, sects etc., can be termed to be `fanatics'. It is not unknown that followers cross limits and break laws, when it comes to their faith," it said, adding that the trial court did not examine whether it could have been a step taken by his staunch followers and also there was no discussion on this aspect in the trial court judgment. "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 (co-accused). 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," the court said....