CBI Versus Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim and Others 1

CBI Versus Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim and others 1

CNRNo.HRPK01-000048-2007 Case No.Chi/1852/2013

Present: Shri H.P.S. Verma, Special PP and Sh. S.S. Yadav, DLA- cum-Special PP for the CBI along with Sh. Satish Dagar, Investigating Officer/SP, AC-III/New Delhi. Shri P.K. Sandhir, Shri Gurdas Singh, Advocate and Shri Harish Chhabra, Advocate for accused-convict Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh. Accused Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh in custody at District Jail, Sunaria (Rohtak) present through VC. Shri N.P.S. Waraich, Advocate and Shri Sarabjit Singh Waraich, Advocate for accused-convicts Nirmal Singh and Kuldeep Singh. Shri Anil Kaushik,Advocate for accused-convict Krishan Lal. Accused-convicts Nirmal Singh, Kuldeep Singh and Krishan Lal in custody at Central Jail, Ambala present through VC.

ORDER ON QUANTUM OF SENTENCE

1. This order is in continuation of the judgment of conviction dated 11.01.2019, for hearing arguments on the quantum of sentence.

2. In order to ensure effective opportunity of hearing to accused/convicts on the quantum of sentence, all four convicts, namely,

Gurmeet Ram Rahim, Kuldeep Singh, Nirmal Singh and Krishan Lal @

Kishan Lal are present through video conferencing and counsel of all four convicts have come present in person in Court. Statements of all convicts have been separately recorded through video conferencing.

3. Convict-Baba Gurmeet Singh @ Maharaj Gurmeet Singh @

Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh has stated that he is 51 years old and spiritual head of Dera Sacha Sauda, a social and spiritual sect with moto of “Dhan

Dhan Satguru Tera Hi Asra”, a faith which is serving the mankind from its headquarter at Sirsa since 1948. During this period of serving as a head since 1991, he has been involved in various social, religious and other CBI Versus Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim and others 2 welfare activities like blood donation, tree plantation, drug eradication to more than 6 Crore people, cleanliness, fight against female foeticide as well as help to the needy at the time of natural calamities. He has permanent trouble of severe back ache and is also suffering from acute diabetes for the last more than 9 years. Besides this, he has old aged mother (widow) who usually remains ill and a housewife with one son and two daughters born in his family. His entire family is free from any criminal record except the present spat of cases after 2002 which is handiwork of forces against and opposing welfare activities done by him and Dera Sacha Sauda. He is not an accused for any criminal act which has been alleged against him to be committed after occurrence of present case i.e. October, 2002. Although, He has already challenged his conviction and sentence in case RC No. 5/2002, still he prays that order of sentence in the present case be passed concurrent with the sentence in RC

No. 5/2002 which he is already undergoing. There is no complaint from anyone or from jail authority since then and his conduct is good in jail.

4. Convict-Kuldeep Singh @ Kala has stated that he is not previously convicted. His parents who are old aged persons generally remains ill. There is no one in the family to look-after them except him.

He is the sole bread earner of the family. He has faced the agony of trial for the last 16 years. He remained in custody for about 14 years during the trial of the present case and his conduct was good in the jail, there is no complaint against him regarding indiscipline committed by him during the period he remained in custody. Except the present case, there is no other complaint or case pending or decided against him in the Court of Law and CBI Versus Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim and others 3 prayed that lenient view may kindly be taken by considering the fact that he is not previously convicted.

5. Convict-Nirmal Singh has stated that he is not previously convicted. He has old aged mother. There is no one in the family to support the family except him. He is the sole bread earner of the family.

He has faced the agony of trial for the last 16 years. He remained in custody for about 14 years during the trial of the present case and his conduct was good in the jail, there is no complaint against him regarding indiscipline committed by him during the period he remained in custody.

Except the present case, there is no other complaint or case pending or decided against him in the Court of Law and payed that lenient view may kindly be taken by considering the fact that he is not previously convicted.

6. Convict-Krishan Lal @ Kishan Lal has stated that he is 70 years old. He is suffering from various ailments. He is not previously convicted. There is no one in the family to support the family except him.

He is the sole bread earner of the family. He has faced the agony of trial for the last 16 years and prayed that lenient view may kindly be taken by considering the fact that he is not previously convicted.

7. Learned Special Prosecutor as well as learned DLA-cum-

Special PP for CBI have submitted that offences committed by convicts are heinous in nature as murder of deceased Ram Chander Chhatarpati was a planned and cold blooded murder. It is submitted that murder of the deceased ruined his family and his children of very young age were orphaned untimely and the same has caused severe mental agony and CBI Versus Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim and others 4 insecurity to the family of the deceased and the very lives of his family members have been shattered. Learned Special PPs have also submitted that convict Gurmeet Ram Rahim is Head of dera sacha sauda and projected himself as a God-man and taking undue advantage of his position, he in conspiracy with other co-accused/convicts got eliminated

Ram Chander Chhatarpati in pursuance of the conspiracy hatched by the accused. It is further submitted that deceased Ram Chander Chhatarpati used to publish newspaper ‘Poora Sach’ and there is no complaint or allegation that the deceased had ever published any wrong news, however the accused/convicts conspired to eliminate him in order to silent voice of the deceased forever. It is further submitted that having regard to gravity of the offence perpetrated in an organized manner, nature of offence and the deleterious effects of the same on society constitute aggravating factors and a strong judicial hand is needed to curb such crimes. It is also submitted that convict Gurmeet Ram Rahim has already been convicted for committing rapes of his own disciples and other three convicts are his staunch followers and the conduct of the convicts-accused calls for severest punishment prescribed under law and hence all convicts be sentenced with exemplary punishment as a message to deter other similar potential offenders from committing such heinous offences and showing any leniency in awarding sentence to the convicts would shock the collective conscience of society and accordingly prayer has been made to award capital punishment to the convicts, apart from awarding maximum punishments for other offences committed by two of the convicts.

Learned Special PPs have also made a prayer to award compensation to CBI Versus Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim and others 5 the victim family and further to direct the convict Gurmeet Ram Rahim to pay compensation to the State Government for spending money on his security.

8. On the other hand, Shri N.P.S.Waraich, learned counsel representing accused Kuldeep Singh and Nirmal Singh has argued that in case of murder, life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is an exception. It is submitted that in a civilized society there is no room for philosophy of ‘an eye for an eye’ and moreover currant penology leans towards reformatory attitude instead of being punitive in nature. It is argued that none of the convicts is a person beyond redemption and therefore no case for awarding capital punishment is made out. It is also submitted that convicts Kuldeep Singh and Nirmal Singh have already undergone substantial period of incarceration and there is no evidence on record that their conduct in jail has not been good, which in turn reflects they are a reformed lot and need not be weeded out of this society. It is also submitted that none of these convicts have committed any other offence except the present one. It is also argued that as per settled law death penalty is awarded in rarest of rare cases i.e. where the murder is committed in an extremely brutal, grotesque, diabolical and dastardly manner so as to arouse intense and extreme indignation of the community, or when the murder is committed for a motive which evince total depravity and meanness, or when the crime is enormous in proportion etc., however none of such circumstances exists in the instant case, so as to warrant awarding of death penalty to the convicts. It is also argued that before opting for the death penalty, the circumstances of the ‘offender’ are CBI Versus Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim and others 6 also required to be taken into consideration along with circumstances of the ‘crime’. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on Machhi Singh Vs State of Haryana, AIR 1983 SC 957 and

Chhannu Lal Verma Vs State of Chhattishgarh, Criminal Appeal

Nos.1482-1483 of 2018 decided on 28.11.2018. It is also submitted that as per the prosecution case, three family members of the deceased were present at the place of occurrence, but none of such family members ever got any scratch on their persons, meaning thereby that the attack was not brutal and the case does not fall in the category of rarest of rare cases.

Finally prayer has been made to take a lenient view.

9. Further Shri Anil Kaushik, Advocate, learned counsel representing accused Krishan Lal has also submitted that accused is an old age person and is not previous convict. It is also submitted that there is nothing on record to suggest that convict is beyond reformation and therefore lenient view be taken while awarding sentence.

10. Further Shri P.K.Sandhir, Advocate, learned counsel representing accused Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh has submitted that present case does not fall in the category of rarest of rare cases in the light of facts and circumstances of the case and minimum punishment prescribed under law be imposed. It is argued that various factors, i.e. extreme depravity, humane concern, foreclosing of probability of the accused being reformed and rehabilitated, real and abiding concern for dignity of human life etc. etc. are to be taken into consideration at the time of awarding sentence in a murder case. However in the instant case, mitigating circumstances outweigh the aggravating circumstances and CBI Versus Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim and others 7 therefore convict be awarded minimum punishment prescribed under law.

It is also submitted that convict is having a sound family background and has been social activist and therefore such a person cannot be said to be a menace to society. It is pointed out that convict-accused has old aged mother and house wife with one son and two daughters and such a person cannot be stated to be a person beyond reformation. It is also submitted that even otherwise, Law Commission of India in its 262 report has recommended abolition of death penalty except in one or two categories of offences and notice of the same has also been taken by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in recent pronouncement in the case of Chhannu Lal

Verma Vs State of Chhattishgarh (supra) case. It is further submitted that judicial discretion provided under Section 427 (1) Cr.P.C. is required to be exercised in the instant case and in case convict is awarded life imprisonment then the same be ordered to run concurrently with the term imprisonment awarded to this convict in another matter i.e. in case RC-

5/2002. In this regard, it is submitted that Section 427 (1) Cr.P.C vests discretion in the court to direct whether the sentence passed on conviction in the subsequent trial will run concurrently or consecutively with the previous sentence awarded to the accused and all facets of sentencing policy may be considered while passing an order under Section 427 (1)

Cr.P.C.. It is argued that while handing over investigation to the CBI in the present case as well as in the another matter in which convict has already been sentenced, Hon’ble High Court had observed that there is common thread running through these cases, meaning thereby that all these matters are interconnected and therefore discretion in terms of CBI Versus Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim and others 8 Section 427 (1) Cr.P.C. ought to be exercised to the advantage of the accused. In support of his contentions reliance has also been placed upon-

P.N.Mohanan Nair Vs State of Kerala, Criminal Appeal Nos.1102-1104 of

2017 decided on 11.07.2017; Mulaim Singh Vs State, decided on

22.05.1974 and Satnam Singh Puransingh Gill Vs The State of

Maharashtra, Criminal Application No.807 of 2008, decided on

14.01.2009.

11. In the instant case, accused persons have been convicted for entering into a criminal conspiracy to eliminate Ram Chander Chhatarpati and for committing murder of deceased Ram Chander Chhatarpati, a journalist based in Sirsa, who used to publish daily eveninger named

‘Poora Sach’. Known as ‘fourth estate’ in a modern state, press is ideally the watchdog of the democracy. Because of its vast potential for influencing the public opinion, it is generally acknowledged that it has the power to make or mar the career of any individual or organization.

Journalism is a serious business, which ignites the desire to seek and report the truth and as such facilitates a better society and world. There is little glamour to the job, no big reward and in the traditional mould it is predominantly a public service in the sincerest sense. Any honest and dedicated journalist has always an uphill task to report the truth, especially concerning a powerful person enjoying political patronage across party lines. Some time a journalist finds himself or herself present with an offer to choose either ‘the carrot’ or ‘the stick’. Those who refuse often face the consequences, sometimes even to the extent of getting eliminated. If he submits to the powerful, he looses credibility; if he CBI Versus Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim and others 9 defies, he gets killed. Therefore in the fight between the good and the evil, it is the journalist in the traditional mould- the one who is inspired by idealistic fervour to serve the cause of truth- who becomes a causality. In the instant case, life of an innocent citizen and an upright, idealistic journalist was snuffed out simply because he dared to write about the activities of a powerful head of some dera. However mobocracy and violent attacks on innocent citizens have no place in a democracy like ours which is governed by rule of law and sound Constitutional norms.

The pillars of democracy cannot be allowed to be crushed.

12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sham Sunder Vs Puran and another 1990 (4) SCC 731 has observed that the court in fixing the punishment for any particular crime should take into consideration the nature of the offence, the circumstances in which it was committed, the degree of deliberation shown by the offender. The measure of punishment should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence. Still further, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shyam Narain Vs State (NCT of Delhi) 2013

(7) SCC 77 has ruled that primarily, it is to be borne in mind that sentencing in any offence has a social goal. The fundamental purpose of imposition of sentence is based on the principle that the accused must realize that the crime committed by him has not only created a dent in the life of the victim but also a concavity in the social fabric. The purpose of just punishment is designed so that the individuals in the society which ultimately constitute the collective do not suffer time and again for such crimes.It serves as a deterrent. It has further been observed by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court, on a number of occasions, that opportunity may be CBI Versus Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim and others 10 granted to the convict for reforming himself but it is equally true that the principle of proportionality between an offence committed and the penalty imposed are to be kept in view. It has to be borne in mind that while carrying out this complex exercise, it is obligatory on the part of the court to see the impact of the offence on the society as a whole and its ramifications on the immediate collective as well as its repercussions on the victim.

13. After hearing rival contentions and having the facts of the case in mind, this court is of the considered opinion that present case does not fall in the category of rarest of rare cases. It is trite law that death penalty is to be awarded to the convicts in case of rarest of rare cases and the facts of the instant case do not attract death penalty which is awarded in rarest of rare case of murder.

14. Keeping in view the settled principles of law as well as the facts obtaining in the present case and also keeping in view the age, character, other antecedents of the convicts and having due regards to the rival contentions of the parties, convicts Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim

Singh, Krishan Lal @ Kishal Lal, Kuldeep Singh and Nirmal Singh are sentenced as under :-

Serial Name of Convicted under Sentence of No. accused/convict Sections Imprisonment/Fine imposed.

1. Baba Gurmeet 120-B IPC read with Life imprisonment and Ram Rahim 302 IPC to pay a fine of ₹ Singh 50,000/-. In default, imprisonment for a further period of two years. CBI Versus Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim and others 11 2. Krishan Lal @ 120-B IPC read with Life imprisonment and Kishan Lal 302 IPC to pay a fine of ₹ 50,000/-. In default, imprisonment for a further period of two years.

29 of the Arms Act Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of ₹ 5,000/-. In default, imprisonment for a further period of three months.

3. Kuldeep Singh 302 IPC read with Life imprisonment and 120-B IPC to pay a fine of ₹ 50,000/-. In default, imprisonment for a further period of two years.

4. Nirmal Singh 302 IPC read with Life imprisonment and 120-B IPC to pay a fine of ₹ 50,000/-. In default, imprisonment for a further period of two years.

25 of the Arms Act Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of ₹ 5,000/-. In default, imprisonment for a further period of three months.

Substantive sentences of convicts Krishan Lal and Nirmal

Singh shall run concurrently. The period of custody already undergone by the convicts during the investigation, inquiry or trial of this case shall be set off against the substantive sentences as per the statutory provision under Section 428 Cr.P.C. Fine not paid.

15. Section 427 (1) Cr.P.C. provides that the date of expiry of CBI Versus Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim and others 12 first sentence that the offender undergoes shall be the starting point of subsequent sentence and without court’s discretion being exercised, the subsequent sentence will not run concurrently. Thus, normally rule of Sec- tion 427 (1) of Cr.P.C. is that when sentences are awarded to a convict in two different offences, one after the other, the sentence awarded to the convict on subsequent conviction shall commence after the expiration of the imprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced, unless the court directs that subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with his previous sentence. No doubt, the discretion vesting with the court is to be exercised judiciously. In the instant case, convict-Gurmeet Ram Rahim is admittedly undergoing term sentence of imprisonment for committing offences of rape and said accused/convict has also been held guilty and awarded life imprisonment for committing offence punishable u/s 120-B

IPC read with Section 302 IPC, meaning thereby that the acts of accused/convict are abhorrent and two distinct and grave crimes have been committed by the convict at different points of time and therefore, it is not a case where discretion is required to be exercised in terms of Sec- tion 427 (1) of Cr.P.C.. Resultantly, life imprisonment awarded to the said convict shall commence at the expiration of term sentence awarded in ear- lier case i.e. in RC No. 05/2002.

16. Let conviction warrants be prepared accordingly.

17. Copy of judgment of conviction dated 11.01.2019 and order of sentence dated 17.01.2019 be provided to the convict free of cost.

18. Case property, if any, be disposed of as per rules after lapse of period of filing of appeal or revision against this judgment or the CBI Versus Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim and others 13 outcome of the same, as the case may be. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced in open Court. (Jagdeep Singh) 17.01.2019 Special Judge(CBI) Haryana at Panchkula. UID No: HR0125.

Note:-All the pages of the judgment/order of sentence have been checked and signed by me. (Jagdeep Singh) Special Judge(CBI) Haryana at Panchkula. Rajesh Chawla UID No: HR0125.