Casting serious doubt on the credibility of the CBI probe into the Ram Chander Chhatrapati murder case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has found that the prosecution’s case against Dera Sacha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim rested primarily on the shifting testimony of a witness who “kept on tossing from one side to the other like a ping pong ball”.In its detailed judgment released today, the high court observed that the prosecution failed to prove Ram Rahim’s involvement in the alleged conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt, while holding that the evidence against the three co-accused remained intact.“It is a settled principle of law that where two possibilities, one of commission of the crime and the other of innocence, are reasonably possible, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt,” it said.In its 111-page judgment, the Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Vikram Aggarwal expressed grave concern over the manner in which the CBI handled the testimony of the prosecution’s key witness, Khatta Singh, projected as Ram Rahim’s driver.The Bench said it would not hesitate to hold that the witness appeared to have been coerced by the CBI into making a statement, as the agency was under pressure to conclude the investigation, something he had suggested 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 Bench noted.The court said the entire case against Ram Rahim rested substantially on the testimony of Khatta Singh, whose statements were inconsistent. “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 when he first made statements during the investigation in December 2006, the witness did not implicate Ram Rahim in the Chhatrapati case. “Ram Rahim was not named at this stage. Not only this, he was not named by any of the co-accused in their disclosure statements as well.”The court further stated: “Even after the CBI had taken over the investigation, Ram Rahim had never been named.” He again did not link Ram Rahim with the Chhatrapati killing when his statement was recorded in another murder case. “His statement was recorded in Ranjit Singh’s murder case… Notably, even at this stage, he did not level any allegations against Ram Rahim regarding his involvement in the present case.”It was only in June 2007 — almost five years after the incident — that he first alleged that Ram Rahim had ordered the killing.The court also considered Ram Rahim’s status as a religious leader with a large following. “We are conscious of the fact that Ram Rahim is a public figure. Such public figures are known to have admirers and enemies alike.” The court acknowledged the influence of religious allegiance in India. “It is well known that Ram Rahim has a huge following. In our country, religion, caste, sects play an extremely important role. Lives are given and taken in their name.”Referring to extreme devotion among followers, the court observed: “Many followers… can be termed ‘fanatics’. A fanatic, as per the Oxford Dictionary, is a person filled with excessive and single-minded zeal, especially for an extreme religious or political cause.”After analysing the evidence, the court said the possibility of the co-accused acting independently could not be ruled out. “There is a greater possibility of the three accused having acted on their own,” it said.The Bench emphasised that courts must decide criminal cases strictly on evidence rather than media narratives. “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.”\Reiterating the principles of criminal jurisprudence, the court added: “The moment a doubt arises, its benefit has to go to the accused.”The court pointed to serious gaps in the prosecution’s case, including the failure to examine a crucial police officer who recorded the injured journalist’s statement. “One aspect that needs mention is that SI Ram Chander had recorded the statement of Ram Chander Chhatrapati in PGI, Rohtak, on October 26, 2002. However, this statement has not been brought on record.”Calling the omission inexplicable, the court said: “It is extremely strange that this very important witness was given up as ‘being unnecessary’… In the considered opinion of this court, he was the most important witness.” This created a serious doubt in the prosecution’s case, the court added.The court also found it surprising that the investigating agency did not attempt to record the journalist’s statement despite medical records showing he remained stable for several days after the shooting. “His treatment record shows that his general condition was fair and stable from October 26, 2002, to at least November 1, 2002.”Yet no effort was made to obtain a formal statement. “Strangely, no application was moved to seek an opinion from the treating doctor on whether Chhatrapati was fit to give a statement. This goes against the investigating agency.”The court recounted the circumstances of the attack: “The incident took place at 8 pm on October 24, 2002. Ram Chander Chhatrapati, along with his two sons Anshul Chhatrapati and Aridaman, and his daughter, was at home and about to have their meals when he was called out and shot.