CBI Vs Baba Gurmeet Singh Maharaj Gurmeet Singh SKM C454e17082922370COM687860

IN THE COURT OF JAGDEEP SINGH, SPECIAL JUDGE, CBI (HARYANA) AT PANCHKULA.
UID NO.: HR0125
Case Type CHI
Filing No. 3178/2013
Filing Date: 27.10.2007
Registration No. 1853/2013
Date of Registration 27.10.2007
CNR No. HRPK01-000049-2007
Judgment Reserved on 17.08.2017
Judgment Delivered on 25.08.2017
CBI VERSUS Baba Gurmeet Singh @ Maharaj Gurmeet Singh @ Gurmeet Ram Rahim
Singh,
son of late Shri Maghar Singh, resident of Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa.
... Accused.
RC No-5(S)/2002/SIU-XV/CHG, dated 12.12.2002
Under Sections: 376, 506 & 509 of the Indian Penal Code.
Police Station: Special Crime Branch, CBI, Chandigarh.
Argued by: Shri HPS Verma, Special PP, Shri V.K. Sharma Special PP, assisted by Shri Satish Dagar Addl. S.P. & Shri
S.S. Yadav, DLA on behalf of the CBI.
Shri S.K. Garg Narwana, Senior Advocate along-with Shri Rajinder Kumar, Advocate & Shri Vishal Garg Narwana,
Advocate for accused Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh.
Judgment:
Accused Baba Gurmeet Singh @ Maharaj Gurmeet Singh @ Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh has been sent up to face trial for
committing offences under section 376, 506 & 509 IPC in case FIR No. RC No-5(S)/2002/SIU-XV/CHG dated 12.12.2002,
Police Station Special Crime Branch, CBI, Chandigarh.
2. As per the case set up by the prosecution/CBI, instant case FIR has been registered and investigation taken up in
pursuance to directions passed by Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana vide order dated 24.09.2002(Ex. PW11/B) passed
in Cri. Misc. No. 26994-M of 2002 'Court on its own motion Vs. The State of Haryana', thereby directing the CBI to
investigate into the matter regarding allegations in an anonymous letter/complaint(Mark A) of sexual exploitation of Sadhvis
in Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa by accused Baba Gurmeet Singh, Chief of the said Dera. Vide the afore-stated letter/complaint,
allegations regarding sexual exploitation of Sadhvis in Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa by Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh (Chief of
19-03-2018 (Page 1 of 56) www.manupatra.com Central University of Bihar

the Dera) were levelled. It was also alleged in the said letter/complaint that Sadhvis/victims were being sexually exploited
by extending threats of dire consequences to them. In pursuance to receipt of said letter/complaint, the Hon'ble High Court
of Punjab and Haryana directed learned District & Sessions Judge, Sirsa to conduct inquiry in the matter and accordingly,
learned District & Sessions Judge, Sirsa submitted the report(Ex. PW11/C) staling therein that nobody in the Dera was
prepared to disclose about the sexual abuse of girls in Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa and there is no access to the hostel of Dera
Sacha Sauda, Sirsa where Sadhvi girls were residing, without prior permission of Baba Gurmeet Singh or the Dera authorities.
Further the report of learned District & Sessions judge, Sirsa also stated that however the possibility of such acts could not
altogether be ruled out and truth can only be ascertained if the matter is secretly got investigated through central agency.
It is in this background that the Hon'ble High Court treated the above-said letter/complaint as Criminal Misc. No. 26994-M of
2002 titled 'Court of its motion Vs. The State of Haryana' and passed an order thereby directing the CBI to take up the
matter for investigation. Resultantly, the instant FIR RC-5(S)/2002/SIU-XV/CHG (Ex. PW11/A) was registered in Special
Crime Branch, CBI, Chandigarh under Sections 376, 506 & 509 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As already noticed, the instant case has been registered on the basis of directions passed by the Hon'ble High Court on
an anonymous letter/complaint, therefore no victim was available with the CBI at the initial stage and the only clue which
was available with the CBI to approach/identify the victims was to peep inside the contents of the anonymous letter. It
would be very pertinent to mention here that there was reference in the above-said letter that one Sadhvi belonging to
Kurukshetra district, who was one of the victims, had returned to her house from the Dera and her brother, who was
Sewadar there, had severed ties with the Dera, after getting disillusioned. There was also reference in the said letter
regarding threats being extended to the victims of sexual exploitation, who had left the Dera and disclosed misdeeds of
Chief of Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa.
4. During investigation by the CBI, it transpired that Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa(also referred to as the Dera hereinafter) was
established in the year 1948 and Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh became Chief of the Dera in the year 1990. That Dera
Sacha Sauda Sirsa comprised of old Dera spread over about 25 acres of land and new Dera spread over 600 acres of land
and both these places are about a distance of 5 KM. from each other. That the educated Sadhvis in the Dera used to teach
students, whereas the less educated ones used to take care of small children and Sadavi teachers resided in the hostel in
the old Dera. It has also come out in the investigation that Baba Gurmeet Singh used to reside in a place called 'Gufa' in the
old Dera as well as in the new Dera from time to time. One drawing (Ex. PW15/13) about the location of building in the Dera
prior to the year 2000 was also provided by the Dera Manager, namely, Inder Sain, on 25.07.2005. In order to record
statements of victims of alleged sexual exploitation, the investigating agency asked the Dera Manager to provide a list of
Sadhvis residing in Shah Satnam Ji Girls Hostel, Sirsa; list of Sadhvis residing in the Ashram of Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa and
list of Sadhvis who had left Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa and accordingly, lists(Ex. PW15/11) were received on 23.02.2005, as
per which 53 Sadhvis were residing in Shah Satnam Ji Girls Hostel, Sirsa, 80 Sadhvis were residing in Ashram Dera Sacha
Sauda, Sirsa and 24 Sadhvis had left the Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa. Further, it also came out in the investigation that only
20 Sadhvis out of 24 Sadhvis, who had left the Dera during the period 1997-2002, could be traced out and most of them
were found married and settled in life and initially they also declined to come out with the truth due to fear and for the sake
of reputation of their families. That since the matter of investigation in this case was stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
vide order dated 15.12.2003 for some time and when the stay was vacated on 29.10.2004, then further investigation was
taken up and during further investigation, 18 out of 24 Sadhvis could be traced out and examined and some of them
apprehended danger to their lives if they spoke the truth. It has also transpired in the investigations of the CBI that during
investigation, two of the victims gathered courage and came out to unravel the misdeeds of the Dera Chief.

5. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Om Parkash Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2006) 3 Supreme Court Cases
401, has laid down that name of victims of sexual offence is not to be indicated in the judgment keeping in view the social
object of preventing social victimization or ostracism of the victim, accordingly, one of the victims i.e. prosecutrix (PW-5)
would be here-in-after referred to as prosecutrix 'A' and another victim i.e. prosecutrix (PW-10) would be referred to as
prosecutrix 'B' in compliance of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
6. During the course of investigation, statements of prosecutrix 'A' and prosecutrix 'B' were recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C. Statement(Ex. PW5/A) of prosecutrix 'A' was also got recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh on 19.03.2007. It is the case of the prosecution that prosecutrix 'A' resided in Dera Sacha
Sauda, Sirsa from July, 1999 to April, 2001. As per the allegations made by prosecutrix 'A' accused Maharaja Gurmeet Ram
Rahim Singh used to stay in the Gufa and Sadhvis used to be put on sentry duty at the gate of Gufa and she was also put
on such sentry duty in a cycle of about 20 days in the night. That when she was on sentry duty at the gate of the Gufa,
she had seen Sadhvis Binder Kaur and Gurkadi Kaur going to the Gufa of Maharaj Gurmeet Singh in the night. That Binder
Kaur left the Dera later-on and she had abused Maharaj Gurmeet Singh before leaving. It was also alleged by prosecutrix A
that Sadhvi Sapna was found weeping after returning from the Gufa of Maharaj Gurmeet Singh and next day, parents of
Sadhvi Sapna came and took her and her sister Rajni away from the Dera. That Sadhvi Gurpalle @ Parminder Kaur had also
left the Dera on account of misbehaviour of Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh. Prosecutrix A has further alleged that Baba
Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh had committed rape upon her twice in the Dera and she also wanted to leave the Dera but could
not do so on account of the education of her brother Ranjit Singh's daughters, namely, Ritu and Geetu. While elaborating
upon the allegations against the accused, prosecutrix A has alleged that on 28/29.08.1999 at about 8.00 p.m., Prabandhak
Sudesh told her that Baba Gurmeet Singh bad called her to Gufa and when she went there, she saw Baba Gurmeet Singh
alone in the Gufa. That accused Baba Gurmeet Singh told her to close the door and to sit. When she sat on the floor, he
asked her to sit on the bed near him. She hesitated, but on the insistence of Baba, she sat near him on the bed and he
asked about her life and experience in the Dera. That accused also asked her about her earlier life and mistakes committed
by her and he also showed her some letters written by a boy to her and asked her about the said boy and she explained
everything to the accused. That on this, accused told that now she need not to worry about the said boy as she had given
her body and mind in his(accused) name by becoming a Sadhvi. That thereafter accused started fondling her body and
when she protested, accused told her that he had the right over her body and she went on resisting and protesting but the
accused threatened her and committed rape upon her forcibly and threatened her. That she was physically weak as
compared to the accused and she could not physically ward off the accused. It is also alleged that accused told her that
she had become 'Apavitr' and he was making her 'Pavitr' and he had forgiven whatever mistakes she had committed. That
when she was coming out of the Gufa, accused threatened her not to tell anything about the incident to anybody or
otherwise it would not be good for her. That after this incident, she was shifted from New Dera to the Old Dera at the
instance of the accused. Thai she also came to know that accused used to call Sadhvis in the Gufa of Old Dera as well.
That Swarnjit and Parminder Kaur were also called to the Gufa in the night and all of them had left the Dera. Further alleged
that after about one year of the first incident, Prabandhak Paramjit Kaur called her and told her that Baba Ji had called her
to the Gufa. That she was scared due to the previous incident and refused to go to Gufa, but Prabandhak told her that if
she would not go to Gufa then she could not get food from the Langar and on repeated instructions from the Prabandhak,
she went to the Gufa. That when she reached Gufa, accused was at the gate of the Gufa and on seeing her, he went inside
the Gufa. When she entered the Gufa. accused Baba Gurmeet Singh closed the door of the Gufa and caught hold of her and
when she threatened to shout, then accused told her that her voice would not go out of the room and when she
threatened to tell everything to her brother Ranjit Singh, then accused Baba Gurmeet Singh told her that Ranjit Singh, being

a staunch disciple, would not believe her and when she insisted that her brother would definitely believe her, then accused
told her that he would get Ranjit Singh killed and buried. That she tried to get herself released from the clutches of the
accused, but to no avail and accused forcibly raped her against her will and consent. Prosecutrix A further alleged that
after 5-6 months of the incident, Warden told her that accused Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh had called her to the Gufa
and when she went there, then accused was standing near outer gate of the Gufa and he tried to pull her to take her up-
stairs but she got herself released and then accused threatened her to get her family killed if she told anything to anybody.
That few days later when her brother Ranjit Singh came to the Dera, she told everything to him and on hearing her, he told
her not to disclose about the incidents to anybody including then-parents and he promised to take her and his two
daughters out of the Dera and after some time, her brother Ranjit Singh took her and his two daughters out of the Dera.
7. Another prosecutrix 'B', who joined the Dera as Sadhvi in July, 1998, has alleged that she became a Sadhvi and Baba
Gurmeet Singh gave her the name 'Nazam'. Prosecutrix 'B' has alleged that there was a way from Girls Hostel to the Gufa of
Maharaj Gurmeet Singh and Sadhvis used to be put on sentry duty at the entry gate of the Gufa and she also used to
perform sentry duty. She has alleged that once in September, 1999 she was on sentry duty in the night from 8.00 p.m. to
12.00 p.m., accused called her inside the Gufa at about 10.00 p.m. and she thought that Maharaj may have some work as
she regarded him as Bhagwan(God) and therefore she went inside the Gufa. That accused told her to sit on the bed near to
him and she hesitated and tried to sit on the floor but accused asked her to sit on the bed. Accordingly, she sat on the bed
by the side of the accused who asked her about her life and experience in the Dera. That thereafter accused started
fondling her body and she resisted but accused forcibly took her in his arms and she tried to get herself released but the
accused was stronger than her. Further alleged that accused committed rape upon her and she kept on weeping and
accused also threatened her not to tell anything about the incident to anybody or otherwise it would not be good for her.
Further alleged that she went out of the Gufa weepingly and she did not tell anything to her colleagues. That her sister
Rajni told her that accused Maharaj Gurmeet Singh had also committed rape upon her. That when her parents came for
Majlis next day, she told them about the incident and requested them to take her out of the Dera and her parents took her
and her sister from the Dera on the same day.
8. As per investigation, some other victims also stated that accused had sexually exploited the Sadhvis.
9. Further, during investigations it also transpired that one Ranjit Singh, who was staunch follower of Dera, was murdered
on 10.07.2002. Further, as per investigations one Paramjit Singh, who is brother-in-law of Ranjit Singh, had also made
disclosure about the misdeeds of accused Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh and said Paramjit Singh made a statement under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. before Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI) Ambala on 27.07.2005, wherein he corroborated the allegations.
Paramjit Singh also alleged that on the occasion of withdrawing prosecutrix A along-with two daughters by Ranjit Singh from
the Dera. he had asked the reason for the same and Ranjit Singh had disclosed that Dera was for name-sake only and
sexual exploitation of girls was going on there. That Ranjit Singh had also told him that prosecutrix A disclosed to him that
accused Gurmeet Singh had committed rape upon her and on account of this reason, Ranjit Singh was worried about the
future of his daughters Ritu and Geetu and thus had taken them out of the Dera. That Ranjit Singh also told him that he had
wasted 25-30 years of his life in Dera and got spoiled the life of his sister at the hands of accused Baba Gurmeet Singh.
Likewise, Sujan Sethi i.e. husband of prosecutrix B also made statement corroborating the allegations of prosecutrix B.
Further during investigation, polygraph/lie detection tests of Inder Sain, Krishan Lal etc. were conducted at CFSL,
Chandigarh and CFSL, New Delhi and same showed deceptions in their statements indicating that accused was sexually
exploiting Sadhvis including prosecutrix A in the Gufa. Accordingly, the investigating agency concluded that Baba Gurmeet
Singh @ Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh @ Maharaj Gurmeet Singh committed offences punishable under Section 376, 506

of the Indian Penal Code and after conclusion of investigations, final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted in the
court for summoning and trial of the accused as per law.
10. Copy of challan and other documents were supplied to accused free of costs as envisaged under section 207 Cr.P.C.
Thereafter Ld. Spl. J.M.(CBI) Haryana at Ambala committed the case for trial to the court of Sessions Judge Ambala.
Charges framed against the accused
11. Finding a prima-facie case, for framing of charges under sections 376 and 506 IPC against the accused Baba Gurmeet
Ram Rahim Singh, the then Special Judge, CBI at Ambala, ordered framing of charges against the accused vide order dated
26.07.2008 and consequently vide order dated 06.09.2008 charges were framed against the accused Baba Gurmeet Singh to
the effect that on 28/29th August, 1999 at about 08.00 p.m. and thereafter after one year, he had committed rape upon
prosecutrix A in the Gufa situated in the area of Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa forcibly and also criminally intimated prosecutrix A
Sadhvi with dire consequences and threat to life while committing rape on her and further accused Baba Gurmeet Singh has
also been charged for committing rape upon prosecutrix B Sadhvi in the month of September, 1999 at about 10.00 p.m.
forcibly in the Gufa situated in the area of Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa and also criminally intimidating prosecutrix B Sadhvi with
dire consequences and threat to life while committing rape upon her. In reply thereto, the accused pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial. Thereafter, prosecution was directed to lead its evidence.
Prosecution Evidence
12. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses. Before proceeding further, it would
be worthwhile to re-produce the gist of the prosecution evidence as under:
13. The prosecution has examined PW-1 Rabesh Chand, Senior Assistant, O/O Sectt. of Hon'ble Chief Justice, Punjab
and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh, who has deposed regarding receipt of an envelope Ex. PW1/1, which contained
complaint Mark A(which has been referred to as anonymous letter/complaint in the judgment). PW-1 Rabesh Chand has
further stated that he produced said envelope before Principal Secretary to the Hon'ble Chief Justice, who opened the same
and directed him to forward the same to general branch and the complaint was endorsed by him to general branch vide
endorsements Ex. PW1/2 and Ex. PW1/3.
14. Prosecution has further examined PW-2 Mohinder Singh, Restorer, High Court of Punjab and Haryana Chandigarh.
This witness has also deposed regarding receipt of complaint Mark A in General Branch on 16.05.2002 from the Chief
Secretariat of High Court and stated that he made entry Ex. PW2/1 regarding diary number and seat number in his hand and
the complaint is sent to the concerned Administrative Judge.
15. The prosecution has further examined PW-3 C.L. Meena, Post Master in the post office of New Secretariat,
Chandigarh, who proved envelope Ex. PW1/1.
16. The prosecution has further examined PW-4 Raja Ram Handiaya. PW-4 Raja Ram Handiaya has stated that he was
President of Taraksheel Society, Haryana from 1990 to 2002 and on 8.5.2002 he received an anonymous letter addressed to
Shri Atal Bihari Bajpayee, the then Prime Minister of India by post. Further stated that the letter contained allegations
regarding sexual exploitation of girls by Baba Gurmeet Singh. Further stated that he handed over the said letter to Vijay
Kumar, Secretary of Taraksheel Society. That the said letter was read over by Vijay Kumar to Jyoti who wanted to become
a Sadhvi and said Jyoti informed her father Amar Nath Arora and her family members about the contents of said letter. That
hue and cry was raised by family member of Jyoti and accused him to be the man behind anonymous letter. Further stated

that on 1.6.2002 at about 5.00/6.00 p.m. Amar Nath Arora, Ishwar Pandit, Karan Singh Patwari, Mahi Pal Rana etc. came to
his residence and asked him about the anonymous letter which he showed to them and on his disclosure regarding receipt of
similar letter by Master Balwant Singh, said people told him to take the letter from Master Balwant Singh or otherwise they
would not spare him and accordingly he went to the residence of Master Balwant Singh and took the letter and handed over
the same to them. Further stated that on 2.6.2002 he along-with Master Jiwan Singh, Master Balbir Singh, Master Mithan
Lal, Krishan Kansal went to Satsang Bhawan, Kalayat as desired by Amar Nath Arora. Thereafter, 20/25 persons including
Amar Nath Arora, Ishwar Pandit, Mahi Pal Rana etc., came there and attacked him with dandas and gave fist blows and he
became unconscious and found himself in PGI, Rohtak. Further stated that the police officials from Hansi visited him and
recorded his statement and after his discharge, he went to police station Kalayat and got recorded his statement but no
action was taken. Thereafter, he continued to receive threats from the assailants to the effect that he should seek pardon
from Dera otherwise he will be killed. That one Rameshwar Dass, who is working in Haryana Police, Jind and follower of Dera
Sacha Sauda, Sirsa for about 14 years, had left the Dera since his sister-in-law was sexually exploited there.
17. The prosecution has further examined Prosecutrix A as PW-5/, who has deposed that she passed her B.A. from
Dayanand College, Kurukshetra in the year 1997. She has one brother, namely, Ranjit Singh (since died) and four sisters.
Her brother Ranjit Singh used to visit Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa. Her parents also used to visit the Dera very often. She
further deposed that in the year 1992-93, there was Satsang at Pipli of Baba Gurmeet Singh and they had gone to attend
the Satsang. She used to see her brother Ranjit Singh going to Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa since her childhood. Baba Gurmeet
Singh used to be accompanied by 10-12 Sadhvis and his other followers. She further deposed that after the Satsang, Baba
Gurmeet Singh along-with Sadhvis and his followers had stayed at their house during night and food was served to them.
She further deposed that in the morning, when Baba Gurmeet Singh was about to leave, then he asked them to visit Dera
Sacha Sauda. Thereafter, she started visiting Dera and she observed that there were some more Sadhvis in the Dera and
she was impressed by them. Then it came to her mind that she should also reside in the Dera as Sadhvi. Her brother Ranjit
Singh was having two daughters, namely, Reetu and Geetu at that time and they were studying in the school at the Dera.
She further deposed that in the month of July, 1999 she started living at the Dera as Sadhvi. Previously, she had been
going to the Old Dera and the new Dera was under construction. She further deposed that when she decided to become a
Sadhvi, by that time new Dera was functional. There were 50-55 Sadhvis who were living in the Ashram in the new Dera
and Gurmeet Singh used to appoint the Incharge of the said Ashram. She further deposed that at that time, one Sudesh
was the Incharge of the Ashram. There was Gufa in the new Dera in which Baba Gurmeet Singh used to live. There was
separate kitchen for Sadhvis and food for the Baba was separately served. It was the duty of some Sadhvis to cook food
for Baba and they used to place food at the door of the Gufa and from there, Ramesh, Manjit and Gurjot (Sadhvis) used to
take food from that place in the Gufa. She further deposed that there were two entry points for going to the Gufa. One
entry point was meant for gents and the other entry point was for ladies/Sadhvis inside the Ashram. The other Sadhvis
used to ask her as to whether Baba (Pitaji) had granted pardon (Mafi) to her or not, but at that time she did not
understand the meaning of word Mafi. When she used to ask from them as to what was the meaning of Mafi, then they
used to laugh at her. She has seen the Sadhvis going inside the Gufa many times. Further stated that on 28/29.8.1999,
Sudesh Incharge of Ashram called her and told her that she has been called by Pitaji inside the Gufa. On hearing this, she
was happy to know that she had been called by Pitaji. Thereafter, at about 8.00/8.30 p.m., Sudesh Kumari took her to the
Gufa and left her there after ringing the bell. Baba Gurmeet Singh is known as Pitaji in the Dera. Sudesh Kumari asked her to
go up-stairs in the Gufa after ringing the bell. She rang the bell, upon which Gurmeet Singh opened the door. She wished
him by saying "Dhan Dhan Satguru Tera Hi Aasra." He asked her to sit and closed the door. She further deposed that when
she tried to sit on the carpet, then he asked her to sit besides him on the bed and initially she hesitated to sit on the bed,

but later on, upon his insistence, she sat on the bed at some distance. He asked her as to whether she was comfortable in
the Dera. Thereafter, he showed her some letters addressed to her at the address of Dera. At that time, she did not know
who had written those letters. Thereafter, Gurmeet Singh asked her to narrate if she had committed any mistake in her life,
then she told him that in her college days, she knew one boy and that boy must be trying to defame her. Thereafter, he
told her that she had become a Sadhvi and now he had control over her body and mind. She further deposed that Baba
Gurmeet told her that she had become "Apavitr" and by that act, he will purify her. Thereafter, he tried to kiss her. She
resisted but he started manhandling her because she was physically very weak in comparison to him. Thereafter, accused
forcibly committed rape upon her without her consent. Thereafter, she complained him that she had been treating him as
God, then he told her that God Krishna also used to do like this. She wore her clothes and tried to come outside the Gufa
weepingly. Accused stopped her and threatened that if she disclosed this incident to anyone, then it would not be good for
her. She told the accused that she did not want to live in this Dera and accused told her that he would send her to the Old
Dera as a teacher. On the next day, she came at the Old Dera. Further deposed that one day when she was on duty at
night, then she saw one Sadhvi namely Sapna going inside the Gufa. When said Sapna returned from the Gufa after 30/45
minutes then she was weeping inconsolably. Some other Sadhvis followed Sapna upto her room and when she asked from
those Sadhvis as to why Sapna was weeping then they did not tell anything. One sister of Sapna, namely, Rajni also used
to reside there. In the morning, before teaching, whenever they had some time at that time, then they used to attend the
Satsang of Baba Gurmeet Singh. She saw Sapna sitting along-with her sister Rajni and parents and she was weeping at that
time. She went to her and asked her as to why she was weeping so much, she told her to leave the Dera as soon as
possible and further said that Baba Gurmeet Singh was a Darinda in guise of God. She further deposed that after about one
year of previous incident, Parbandhak called her and told that she had been called by Baba/Pitaji in the Gufa. She became
frightened and apprehended that the same incident may not be repeated with her in the Gufa. She refused to go there. He
threatened her that in case she will not go there, her Langar would be stopped. Upon her insistence, she went there. Baba
Gurmeet Singh was standing at the door of the Gufa. Accused started rebuking her and when she went inside he bolted the
room. When she said that she would raise voice, then accused told her that inside voice could not be heard from outside.
She told him that she will disclose everything to her brother Ranjit Singh. He replied that Ranjit Singh would not listen to her
and would not believe her story because he was having blind faith in him. She further deposed that thereafter, accused
again raped her forcibly and against her will. Prior to that, accused had said to her that Ranjit Singh cannot dare to
question her and he will get him shoot and also will get him buried. He further told her that even a bird cannot move without
his permission in the Dera and that he was having good links with high-ups. She returned back from the Gufa while weeping.
She further deposed that at that time, Reetu, elder daughter of her brother Ranjit Singh, was studying in BA final in the
college run by the Dera, who also wanted to become a Sadhvi. Whenever she tried to disclose about the incident to Reetu,
she was not allowed to do so and they made Reetu against her. She further deposed that after 5-6 months of her second
incident of rape, she was called by the Warden in the day time and she told her that she had been called by Pitaji. Though
she was frightened but since it was a day time, therefore she went to Gufa. Gurmeet Singh was already standing there on
the stairs and when she asked him as to why he had called her, then he started rebuking her while standing on the stairs
and told her that how could she dare to question while standing downstairs. Despite all her resistance, he dragged her and
took her inside the room. There he threatened her that now she had courage to speak against him and further told her that
if she dared to speak anything against him, then the results would not be good for her and her family. He told her that he is
having links with high-ups and Ministers. He further told her that if she continued to do like this, then her whole family would
be burnt alive. Thereafter, she returned from there weepingly. She further deposed that although she was very much
scared, still she told above incident to her brother Ranjit Singh. After hearing this, he was stunned for some time. He

advised her not to disclose this fact to their parents as they will feel it too much. His brother stated that he has been
worshiping him like a God for the last so many years and it would have been better for him if he had worshiped a stone. She
further deposed that at that time, the final exams of his niece Reetu were near, so her brother said that after her exams,
he will take them to their home from the Dera. In April, 2001, after completion of exams of Reetu, immediately next day, her
brother Ranjit Singh brought all of them back from the Dera. Prior to that, many other Sadhvis including Rajnish, Parminder
had already left the Dera. Before leaving Dera, Rajnish asked her to leave the Dera as soon as possible, otherwise the
accused will squeeze her like a lemon. She further told her that she would take some action against the accused after
leaving the Dera. After returning from Dera, one day her brother Ranjit Singh told her that some anonymous letter was being
circulated, which was also pointing one line towards them, due to which Krishan Lal, Inder Sain, Avtar Singh. Rabu Lal alias
Purshottam, who could even scarify their lives for Gurmeet Singh, were pressuring him to come to Dera and beg pardon from
Baba Gurmeet Singh. She further deposed that she was married on 4.10.2001. After her marriage, her brother Ranjit Singh
came to her on 1.7.2002 and told her that Dera people, namely, Krishan Lal, Inder Sam, Rahu Lal and Avtar Singh etc. were
harassing him very much and had been giving threatening calls to him and give threats to him that they would eliminate his
children and parents by burning. Her brother further told her that he had asked the aforesaid persons not to harass him
otherwise he would disclose to every one as to what had happened to her sister in the Dera. Thereafter, her brother Ranjit
Singh was killed by the Dera people on 10.7.2002. After the arrest of Krishan Lal and Avtar Singh, who had been
absconding, she gathered courage and disclosed about the incidents to her husband who extended moral support to her and
her parents also gave support to her. She further deposed that on 19.3.2007 her statement Ex. PW5/A was got recorded at
Chandigarh by some Judicial officer in his chamber. She further deposed that the same was signed by her on each and every
page and she identified her signature on the same.
18. The prosecution has further examined PW-6 Paramjit Singh, who has deposed that deceased Ranjit Singh was his
brother-in-law. Further stated that Ranjit Singh was shot dead on 10.07.2002 and Ranjit Singh was follower of Dera Sacha
Sauda since 1972-73 and he was very close to Baba Gurmeet Singh. That Dera had constituted a ten members committee
to oversee its working in the State of Haryana and Ranjit Singh was a member of that committee. Ranjit Singh's daughters,
namely Reetu and Geetu were students of Dera Institute. Further stated that prosecutrix A is his sister-in-law and she was
a teacher in Dera School named Shah Satnam Girls School, Sirsa. Further stated that prosecutrix A started residing in Dera
complex in the year 1999 and in April, 2001 he along-with Joginder Singh, father of Ranjit Singh had gone to the Dera to
bring prosecutrix A and Reetu from Dera and met Baba Gurmeet Singh to seek his permission to take prosecutrix A with
them. Prosecutrix A was living as Sadhvi in the Dera and as per practice of Dera, no one was allowed to meet a Sadhvi
without the permission of Baba Gurmeet Singh and accordingly, they took permission of Baba Gurmeet Singh and brought
Reetu and prosecutrix A back home. Further stated that every year on 25th of January, Bhandara is organized at the new
Dera at Sirsa. Usually Ranjit Singh used to stay at Dera for 15-20 days at the time of annual Bhandara but he stayed only
for two days in the year 2001 and on inquiry by him regarding his growing disaffection in Dera Sacha Sauda, Ranjit Singh
stated that sanctity of Dera had been affected and it was no more being run by truly religious people and there had been
cases of sexual exploitation at the Dera. Further slated that Ranjit Singh also stated that it was not Sacha Sauda, rather
Jhoota Sauda and that he had wasted 25 years of his life. Further stated that on further inquiry, Ranjit Singh disclosed that
prosecutrix A was herself a victim of sexual exploitation at the Dera and so, he did not want to spoil future of Reetu.
Further stated that on 4.10.2001 marriage of prosecutrix A was solemnized with Neeraj and Ranjit Singh informed him that
the said marriage was attended by three other girls who had also been sexually exploited and had left the Dera. Further
stated that deceased Ranjit met him about 15-20 days prior to his murder and on that occasion, he told that followers of
Dera Sacha Sauda suspected him in connection with anonymous letter against the Dera and further told that 3-4 persons

had come to him and asked him to seek pardon from the Dera, to which he refused to go to the Dera and apologize. Further
stated that his statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in case RC 8(S)/2003-SCB. CBI Chandigarh and proved
the statement Ex. PW6/A,
19. The prosecution has further examined PW-7 Joginder Singh who deposed in the tone and tenor as deposed to by PW-
G Paramjit Singh and PW-5/prosecutrix A. PW-7 has corroborated PW-5 regarding her deposition about visit of the accused
at their residence and stay of accused at their residence. He has also stated that accused Gurmeet Singh has suggested
his daughter prosecutrix A to visit the Dera and to get herself initiated by him. He has further deposed about pestering of
prosecutrix A by one boy and the joining of Dera Sacha Sauda Sirsa by prosecutrix A in the year 1999. He has also stated
that prosecutrix A stayed in the new complex of Dera Sacha Sauda for one and half month and then she shifted to old
complex of the Dera and stayed in the hostel for about one and half years and had taught at the Girls school of the Dera.
He has further stated that in May, 2001 he along-with Paramjit and Ranjit had brought back Reetu, Geetu and prosecutrix A
from the Dera to their village, after getting permission from accused Gurmeet Singh. This witness has also deposed about
growing disaffection of Ranjit Singh towards Dera, anonymous letter story as well as disclosure of Ranjit Singh regarding
sexual exploitation of Sadhvis at the Dera. Further stated that after the murder of Ranjit Singh, his daughter prosecutrix A
told him that illegal activities were going on in the Dera and that she herself had been subjected to sexual exploitation by
Gurmeet Singh at the Dera.
20. The prosecution has further examined PW-8 Dr. P. Paul Ramesh, Senior Scientific Officer, CFSL, Kolkata. This
witness has proved letter Ex. PW8/A vide which polygraph test was required to be conducted qua subjects Inder Sain and
Krishan Lal. Further stated that he conducted polygraph test of subjects Inder Sain and Krishan Lal and submitted the
report dated 14.07.2005 (Ex. PW8/B) and the same was forwarded to SSP, CBI, SCB, Chandigarh along-with other
documents in a sealed cover vide letter dated 24.7.2005 (Ex. PW8/C). Further stated that subject Inder Sain has been
examined by him regarding prosecutrix A's sexual exploitation case and the responses of the subject were deceptive for
questions No. 1, 3 and 4. That necessary guidelines were followed in conducting the test.
21. The prosecution has further examined PW-9 Dr. Amod Kumar Singh, Medical Officer, SSO-I, Lie Detection Division,
CFSL, New Delhi. This witness has stated that three subjects Avtar Singh, Inder Sain and Krishan Lal were brought before
him for the polygraph examination by DSP CBI Chandigarh on 18.7.2005 and consent of the subjects were obtained vide
consent forms EX. PW9/1 to Ex. PW9/3. This witness has further stated that actual polygraph examination of above-named
three subjects was conducted and on the basis of analysis of polygraphs, responses of all the three subjects were found to
be deceptive on certain issues which are mentioned in the report dated 3.7.2005/Ex. PW9/B and forwarded vide letter Ex.
PW9/A.
22. The prosecution has further examined prosecutrix B as PW-10, who has deposed that her parents are residing at Sirsa
and her father was a follower of Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa since the time of her grand-father. Often she also used to
accompany her father to Dera Sacha Sauda. She developed the tendency to serve the Dera and also to become a Sadhvi.
In June, 1998 she became a Sadhvi and started residing at the Dera premises. She further deposed that at that time, Baba
Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh was the head of the Dera, She further deposed that she used to reside at the Girls' hostel of the
Dera. At that time, she had become Sadhvi, Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh had renamed her 'NAZAM'. She used to teach
at the school from 8.00 a.m. to 2.30 p.m. She used to take tuitions of children who were weak in studies from 4.00 p.m. to
6.00 p.m. and thereafter, Sadhvis used to perform duty as guard at the door from Girls' hostel to Gufa from 8.00 p.m. to
12.00 in the night and from 12.00 in the night till 4.30 p.m. and by gufa she meant the place where Baba Gurmeet Ram
Rahim Singh used to reside. She further deposed that in September, 1999 she was deputed on duty as guard from 8.00 p.m.

to 12.00 in the night outside the gate of Gufa. At around 10.00 p.m., Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh came out of the Gufa
and called her inside. She was alone on duty at that time. She went inside the Gufa as she used to respect him a lot and
treat him like a God. She thought he must have some work to allot to her. Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh was sitting on
the bed in the Gufa. He asked her to sit on the bed, Hesitatingly she tried to sit on the floor as she respected him a lot.
However, Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh asked her to sit along him. Accordingly, she sat on the bed alongside him. Then
Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh started asking her about herself and the Dera. He inquired her whether she was feeling at
home at the Dera or not. He also enquired her about other Sadhvis and she replied that they were nice. Baba Gurmeet Ram
Rahim Singh tried to touch her, however she restrained him from touching her. Then he forcibly embraced her and kissed her
forehead. Then forcibly he made her lie on the bed and took off her clothes. He was physically very powerful and forcibly he
raped her. She started weeping. When she stared putting on her clothes, Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh threatened her.
He stated not to disclose this incident to anyone and in case she will disclose this fact to anyone, it will not be good for
her. She further deposed that after the incident, she left the hostel. She further deposed that on seeing her weeping many
girls gathered there and she did not disclose any fact to them. She further deposed that in the next morning, her parents
came to the Dera to attend the Majlis. She met her parents and told them about the incident. After taking permission from
Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh, her parents took her to the home in the evening. She and her parents did not report the
matter to the law enforcing agencies as Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh had threatened her and he was having clout with
high ups such as politicians. She further deposed that she had got married to Sujan Sethi in May, 2000. The parents of her
husband were also followers of Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa. After marriage, her husband suspected her virginity and after long
time she disclosed to her husband that Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim had raped her once. She further deposed that even when
the investigation of this case was going on they started getting. phone calls stating that these phone calls were from the
Dera and she should not appear before the CBI officer and make any statement regarding the incident. She further deposed
that even when the challan was presented, they used to get phone calls stating that she should resile from her statement
made before Investigating Officer. She further deposed that a lot of pressure was exerted upon her on account of which
she and her husband had to leave the house of her in-laws. Her in-laws are still staunch followers of Dera Sacha Sauda.
She further deposed that once her husband was also taken to Dera Sacha Sauda and he was asked that they will have to
resile from their statements and will have to sign affidavits for the same. She further deposed that her father-in-law had
got a telephonic call from the Dera and he had taken herself and her husband to the Dera. She further deposed that she,
her husband and her father-in-law were made to sit in the Suchkhand Hall situated behind the place where the Satsang is
performed by the accused. She further deposed that there Baba came on a car and he started staring at them and then he
stated that they should continue to visit the Dera and then he left. She further deposed that one Mohan Singh met them
there who is also a Sadhu in the Dera and he told them that the papers were not yet ready and after getting the papers
prepared from the lawyers, they will be called again. Her father-in-law replied that he will send them i.e. herself and her
husband, as and when they are summoned to the Dera. She further deposed that on the next day, her father-in-law started
getting telephonic calls from the Dera stating that the papers were ready and that they should come and sign the same.
She further deposed that they refused to sign the papers and then she and her husband left the house of her father-in-law
and started residing at the house of her parents. She further deposed that they had informed CBI officers that they were
being pressurized by the Dera people to resile from the statement and that they had left the house of her in-laws and the
CBI officers had provided them security.
23. The prosecution has further examined PW-11 Shri S.S. Sandhu, Additional Superintendent of Police, SC-III, who
has deposed that in December, 2002 he was posted as DSP in SIU-XV Branch at Chandigarh. This witness has proved FIR
Ex. PW11/A and staled that the same was registered on the directions of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and stated

that order Ex. PW11/B of the Hon'ble High Court was conveyed vide order dated 4.10.2002. Further slated that copy of
report of learned District & Sessions Judge, Sirsa is Ex. PW11/C. Further stated that after registration of the case,
investigation of this case was entrusted to him.
24. The prosecution has further examined PW-12 Sujan Sethi, who is husband of prosecutrix B. This witness has
deposed on the lines of the statement of prosecutrix B. He has deposed that he got married with prosecutrix B on 28.5.2000
and he became suspect about her virginity and on his persistent asking, his wife narrated in detail the stop, of her sexual
exploitation by the accused and on hearing this, he was stunned. He has further stated that his wife also narrated that her
parents knew that the accused is influential and powerful person and if any action is taken by them, then he (accused)
would get their family eliminated This witness has further deposed as to how he opposed initiation of his sister Usha at the
Dera and when his parents did not agree with him, then he narrated the whole story of sexual exploitation of his wife at the
Dera by the accused and further stated that his parents were staunch followers of the accused and they started torturing
him and his wife and instructed their, not to open their mouth before the CBI. This witness has further deposed regarding
receiving of threatening telephone calls from the Dera and stated that he also received such threatening calls 3-4 days prior
to filing of the charge-sheet by the CBI, thereby pressurizing them to change their statements in the court. This witness
has further stated that his father took him to the Dera on getting such threatening calls from the Dera. Further stated that
on 3.8.2007 his father took him and his wife again to the Dera for signing the affidavit. He has further deposed regarding
pressure being exerted upon him and his wife to go to the Dera by his own family members as well as by the followers of
Dera and that they informed the CBI about the same as well.
25. The prosecution has further examined PW-13 Rajesh Kumar Khajuria, Inspector CBI who has deposed that he was
assisting DSP Satish Dagar who was head of the investigating team and on 4.5.2006 he recorded the statements of
prosecutrix B and her husband Sujan Sethi at Fatehabad as per the directions of Satish Dagar. That he also recorded the
statement of Mulakh Raj, father of prosecutrix B on 4.7.2006 at Sirsa.
26. The prosecution has further examined PW-14 Balwinder Kumar, PCS, JMIC, who has deposed that on 22.6.2007 he
was posted as Judicial Magistrate 1st Class/Duty Magistrate at Chandigarh and an application Ex. PW14/1 was moved by
the CBI for recording statement of Khatta Singh under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and he recorded the statement Mark PW14/A of
Khatta Singh as per law. This witness has proved certificates Ex. PW14/2, Ex. PW14/3 and Ex. PW14/4 respectively bearing
his signature in order to fortify that the statement of Khatta Singh was recorded as per law. He has further stated that he
made inquiries from Khatta Singh to satisfy himself that he was making the statement voluntarily and without any pressure.
Further stated that the statement mark PW14/A bears signature of Khatta Singh at point A to J. Further stated that order
Ex. PW14/5 was passed by him.
27. The prosecution has further examined PW-15 Satish Dagar, Additional SP CBI ACB, Chandigarh, who has remained
Investigating officer in this case w.e.f. 18.11.2004. He has deposed that this case was entrusted to him after the Hon'ble
Supreme Court vacated the stay on investigation and he took charge of the case file from Dr. Armaandeep Singh, who was
Investigating officer of the case during the period of stay by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He has further stated that Shri
R.K. Khajuria, Inspector had regularly assisted him. That the case was initially registered on 12.12.2002 vide FIR Ex. PW11/A
on the directions (Ex. PW11/B) of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh passed in CRM No. 26994-M of 2002.
That Shri S.S. Sandhu, the then DSP was first Investigating Officer of the case. Further staled that Shri M. Narayanan, the
then DIG, Special Crime Region, New Delhi remained as Chief Investigating Officer of the present case and had recorded the
statement of PW Khatta Singh on 21.06.2007 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Further stated that Mr. M. Narayanan, the then DIG

had moved application Ex. PW15/1 before Judicial Magistrate 1st Class/Duty Magistrate, Chandigarh on 22.6.2007 for
recording the statement of Khatta Singh under Section 164 Cr.P.C. That he had assisted Shri M. Narayanan, when he was
Chief Investigating officer. Further stated that he took in possession a typed letter in Hindi and addressed to Prime Minister
of India from one Mahi Pal Rana vide seizure memo Ex. PW15/2 and the letter is Ex. PW15/3. Further stated that he also got
recorded statement Ex. PW5/A of prosecutrix A before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh on
19.3.2007 by moving application Ex. PW15/4. Further stated that he had identified the prosecutrix before the Chief Judicial
Magistrate and the identification certificate is Ex. PW15/5 and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Shri Y.S. Rathore had
passed an order Ex. PW15/7 before recording the statement of prosecutrix. Further stated that he had applied to the court
to obtain copy of statement of prosecutrix vide application Ex. PW15/6 and also moved an application EX. PW15/8 for
handing over the statement of prosecutrix in a sealed cover and request was allowed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate
vide order Ex. PW15/9. Further stated that the envelop in which said statement of prosecutrix was sealed is Ex. PW15/10
and the same bears seal impression of Shri Y.S. Rathore, the then CJM, Chandigarh and the envelop bears signature of Shri
Y.S. Rathore at three places. This witness has proved original application Ex. PW15/G.
28. Further stated that during investigation, Inder Sain. Manager of the Dera had provided him list of Sadhvis residing in
Dora Sacha Sauda, residing in Shah Satnam Ji Girls Hostel, Sirsa vide Ex. PW15/11 and the list bear the signature of Inder
Sam with his seal on each page of the list and he made endorsement with his signature at point A and signature and seal of
Inder Sain was at point B. Further stated that Inder Sain had also supplied list of Sadhvis who were residing in Ashram of
Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa running into four pages and bears signature of Inder Sain and his seal at point A and endorsement
with regard to receipt of the same is at point B. Further stated that all lists bear date as 21.2.2005 below signatures of
Inder Sam and were received by him on 23.2.2005. Further stated that he had recorded statements of witnesses such as
prosecutrix PW-5, Joginder Singh and Paramjit Singh on 25.2.2005 truly and Paramjit Singh had disclosed about sexual
exploitation of PW-5 by the accused. Further stated that he had inspected Dera premises i.e. old Dera Sacha Sauda and
Gufa in it on 14.7.2005 and during that inspection, Inder Sain and one Gurbaj Singh remained with him throughout
inspection. Further stated that during his investigation on 14.7.2005, he had verified the list of Sadhvis sent by Inder Sain
to him and whether names of all the sadhvis had been included in it. Further stated that when he was in the process of
preparing the site plan of the place of incident i.e. Gufa, its location etc., Inder Sain told him to get prepared a proper site
plan and to send it to him and thereafter Inder Sain sent the site plan/Ex. PW15/13 and photocopies of attendance
register/Ex. PW15/14 through a letter on letter-head of Dera Sach Sauda bearing rubber stamp of Manager of Dera Sacha
Sauda, Sirsa. Further stated that the site plan sent by Inder Sain to him vide forwarding letter is correct as he had seen
the places shown in the site plan and forwarding letter is Ex. PW15/12. Further stated that statements of prosecutrix PW-
10, her husband Sujan Sethi and her father Mulakh Raj were recorded by Inspector R.K. Khajuria who assisted him during
investigation. Further stated that he had examined prosecutrix PW-5 in the month of July, 2006 and in March, 2007
prosecutrix PW-5 had expressed her willingness to make statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and accordingly her statement
was got recorded before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh. Further stated that in April, 2007 M. Narayanan, DIG,
Special Crime Region, New Delhi had become Chief Investigating Offices of three Dera Sauda Cases and he continued to
assist him. That the DIG Mr. M. Narayanan has examined Khatta Singh on 21.6.2007 and said Khatta Singh was produced in
the court at Chandigarh on 22.06.2007 to get his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. recorded. Further stated that
polygraph test of Inder Sain, Krishan Lal and Avtar Singh were carried out at CFSL, CBI Delhi during the course of
investigation on the basis of letter Ex. PW15/15. Further stated that after completion of investigation, challan was filed in
the court on 30.07.2007.
Examination of the Accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

29. After closure of prosecution evidence, entire incriminating evidence was put to the accused in the shape of questions
while recording statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused in his written submissions has denied the
allegations and claims innocence. The accused has pleaded that CBI has falsely implicated him in order to malign his
reputation. Further pleaded that he promotes de-addiction of liquor, inspire people against female feticide, carries out
hundreds of social welfare activities and drug Mafia, anti religious people, political persons and other Dera Institutions are
against him and that this case is falsely registered against him in order to defame him and instant case is part of criminal
conspiracy. Accused has further pleaded that he had never raped anyone and since 1990 he is not medically or physically fit
to do sex with anyone and that he is not potent. Further submitted that the investigation of CBI is partial on account of the
reason that Krishan Lal had filed a criminal complaint against officers Armaandeep Singh and Satish Dagar of the CBI and
both these officers had induced the witnesses to make false statements against him. Further pleaded that he is related to
religious congregation and has no concern with other activities of Dora. That he, being religious Head of Dera Sacha Sauda,
organize various religious programmes. He has also pleaded that prosecutrix/PW10 had a conspiracy with some elements
who are anti Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa and therefore she has given a false statement against him. Further pleaded that to
save Paramjit Singh in LIC policy case, prosecutrix/PW5 and her father and other relatives in connivance with CBI made
false statements against. him. That at the time of departure, prosecutrix/PW5 had written a letter in her own hand showing
therein that he (accused) was being treated by her as father and brother, namely, Ranjit Singh of prosecutrix/PW5 was
associated with Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa till his last breath. Accused has also pleaded that prosecutrix/PW5 felt defamed
and dishonoured on account of letters of Sahab Singh written to her coming to the knowledge of students, teachers and
the management and because of that she did not want to live at Dera. It is also pleaded by accused that prosecutrix/PW10
had executed an affidavit Ex. D1 in which she had maintained that Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa is a pious and sacred
organization. That disciples of Dera freely roam in the Dera and there are no restrictions at all upon any person including
Sadhus and Sadhvis.
Defence Evidence
30. After recording statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused was called upon to enter upon his
defence and accused has examined as many as 37 witnesses in his defence evidence. The gist of defence witnesses is as
under:-
31. DW-1 Balwinder Singh @ Binder Singh has deposed that his two daughters namely Gurjaspreet and Gursimranpreet were
pursuing their studies in Dera Sacha Sauda Girls School of Dera Sacha Sauda in the year 1999-2000 and at that time, he
came across prosecutrix A, prosecutrix B and others who were employed as teachers. Further stated that he came across
prosecutrix B at the time of parent's teacher meeting and prosecutrix B had visited his house along-with his daughters and
was motivating him to become disciple of Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa. Further stated that prosecutrix A was also teacher of
his daughter as she used to take extra classes and prosecutrix A had also visited his house twice. Further stated that
marriage of prosecutrix B was performed in the premises of New Dera Complex and he had also attended the said marriage.
During cross-examination, this witness has stated that there are two Deras i.e. one is known as Old Dera Sacha Sauda and
another as New Dera Sacha Sauda. Further admitted that he had seen Gufa of accused in Old Dera premises and accused
lived in aforesaid Gufa at one point of time.
32. DW-2 Dr. Sameer Bahl, the then Physician in Parampita Shah Satnam Singh Ji General Hospital, Sri Gurusar Modia,
District Sri Ganga Nagar(Rajasthan) has deposed that he remained posted as Physician in the said hospital during February,
1997 to 24th June, 2004. That he had examined Dr. Sujan Sethi and prescribed medicines to him vide prescription slip, the

copy of which is Ex. DW2/1, This witness has also deposed that prescription slip Ex. DW2/2 was prepared by Dr. M.P. Singh,
who had worked with him and said prescription slip is photo copy of the original one. Further stated that Dr. Sujan Sethi
visited the hospital along-with his wife and they were having problem of infertility. During cross-examination, this witness
has stated that neither Sujan Sethi nor his wife was personally known to him.
33. DW-3 Charanjit Singh has slated that he is a practicing Advocate at Ambala from 1998 till today. Further stated that
Shri F.C. Aggarwal, Advocate expired in the year 2007 and he had seen Mr. F.C. Aggarwal, Advocate writing and signing and
identified signature of Shri F.C. Aggarwal, Advocate on application dated 29.3.2007 Ex. DW3/1. He has further stated that
affidavit of Khatta Singh bearing his signature is Ex. DW3/2 and the certified coy of power of attorney is Ex. DW3/3. Further
deposed that certified copy of Criminal Revision Petition is Ex. DW3/4 and certified copy of power of attorney is Ex. DW3/5.
Further stated that the application moved by Khatta Singh was dismissed by the court vide order Ex. DW3/6 and revision
petition was also dismissed vide order Ex. DW3/7. During cross-examination, this witness has stated that he was not
associated with Mr. F.C. Aggarwal, Advocate but was acting as junior of Shri Jasmer Chand Advocate. Further stated that
in his career as a lawyer, he had filed only revision against order of Magistrate in this court vide which application to record
statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. moved by the applicant himself was declined. Further stated that Shri Jasmer Chand
Advocate is follower of Dera Sacha Sauda, who was present in Courts complex, Panchkula on the day of deposition of this
witness. Further admitted that revision petition does not bear his signature as well as signature of any other lawyer.
34. The defence has further examined Rajinder Kumar as DW-4, who is identifier of deponent Sapna@ Nazam on the affidavit
Ex. D1. DW-4 has further deposed that the affidavit was dictated by prosecutrix B herself and the same was got typed in
his presence as well as in presence of father-in-law, namely, Tek Chand, of prosecutrix B. He has also stared that he and
Tek Chand accompanied prosecutrix B to Notary Public and got the affidavit attested from Notary Public. During cross-
examination, this witness admitted that Sapna was residing in Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa as Sadhvi.
35. The defence has further examined DW-5 Sanjay Saini. Registering Clerk, Sub Registrar Office, Barara, who proved the
registered sale deed No. 658 dated 31.07.2001 Ex. DB.
36. Further, DW-6 Surja Ram is an attesting witness of sale deed Ex. DB and accordingly identified his signature on the
same as attesting witness. Further stated that at the time of registration of sale deed, photograph of vendor, vendee and
witnesses were also taken by computer and were pasted on the same and identified his photographs at mark D and that of
Ranjit Singh at mark A on sale deed Ex. DB.
37. The defence has further examined Tarlok Chand@ Bitoo as DW-7, who has identified signature of his father, namely Gian
Chand Verma who was deed writer and stated that he identified signature of his father at mark H on Ex. DB. This witness
has also identified his fathers hand-writing and signature at entry No. 370 in Wasikanavis register
38. The defence has further examined DW-B Sunil Kumar who has deposed that he and Tara Chand had sold approx 5 kanal
18 marlas of land to Dera Sacha Sauda Sirsa through Ranjit Singh and the parties to the sale deed as well as attesting
witnesses had signed in his presence
39. DW-9 Sunil Dutt Sharma. Clerk Sub Tehsil Saha. district Ambala has proved certified copy of sale deed No. 514 dated
31.7.2001 as Ex. DW9/A and photo copy of the original sale deed as Mark DW9/1
40. DW-10 Madhu Bala, Clerk had drafted the sale deed No. 514 dated 31.7.2001 and has corroborated the testimony of
DW-9 Sunil Dutt Sharma and identified her signature as deed writer on Ex. DW9/A

41. DW-11 Gulshan Lal is maternal uncle of prosecutrix B. DW-11 has deposed that prosecutrix B was a teacher in Shah
Satnam Ji Girls School, Sirsa in the year 1998 to 1999. Further stated that Mulakh Raj and his family are followers of Dera
Sacha Sauda, Sirsa and had left attending Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa in the year 2007-08. Further stated that he used to
visit the school and hostel of prosecutrix B and used to meet prosecutrix B and Rajni in the hostel and there was no
restriction upon prosecutrix B or any other lady teacher in the school or the hostel and further stated that he found
prosecutrix B and her sister Rajni in normal state of mind. That prosecutrix B used to visit her house in Sirsa once or twice in
15 days. That Mulakh Raj had taken back prosecutrix B and Rajni in the last week of September, 1999 as they were to be
married and at that time, he was also in the Dera in connection with Satsang. Further stated that prosecutrix B was married
on 28.9.2000 with Sujan Sethi in the premises of Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa with the blessings of Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh.
Further stated that he had also attended marriage of prosecutrix B and performed ritual ceremonies being maternal uncle.
That prosecutrix B was having good impression about the accused all 200G and used to praise him. During cross-
examination, DW-11 stated that Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh lives in a place called Gufa and that he had seen the said Gufa.
Further stated that he had attended Dera Sacha Sauda Sirsa for more than 50 times.
42. The defence has further examined DW-12 Rajesh Kalyan, Registration Clerk Sub Registrar Office, Ambala, who has
proved certified copies of sale deeds No. 4897 dated 29.11.2001 and No. 4898 dated 29.11.2001 as Ex. DW12/A and Ex.
DW12/B respectively.
43. DW-13 Bhupender Singh, Document Writer has deposed that he has scribed sale deeds Ex. DW12/A and Ex. DW12/B on
the directions of parties to the sale deeds and the same were prepared in triplicate as per norms.
44. DW-14 Sharda Rani has staled that she had signed sale deed No. 4897 dated 29.11.2001 in the capacity of Vendor.
Further stated that she had attended office of Sub Registrar along-with vendee and witnesses and identified the
photograph of Ranjit Singh at point Mark B on the sale deed Ex. DW12/A. Further stated that sale consideration was passed
to her a day prior to registration of sale deeds at her house by Ranjit Singh.
45. The defence has further examined DW-15 Gurjinder Kaur, who has deposed that she is residing as Sadhvi in girls hostel
Shall Satnam Ji Girls Hostel since 24.1.1998. She has stated that Sewadar and teachers also used to reside in the said
hostel. Further stated that her entire family and all relatives are followers of Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa. That Sadhvis and
teachers used to treat and call the accused as Pita Ji and accused treats all Sadhvis and teachers as daughters. That
accused has been falsely implicated in this case at the instance of persons inimical to the accused and Dera. Further stated
that both the prosecutrix were living in hostel of Shah Satnam Ji Girls School Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa. That PW-10 left
Dera Sacha Sauda Sirsa in order to get married and another prosecutrix PW-5 left Dera Sacha Sauda because the love
letters addressed to her fell in the hands of Manager Paramjit and Sudesh Warden and she felt humiliated as this tact
became talk of she hostel. Further stated that marriage of prosecutrix PW-10 had taken place in Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa.
During cross-examination, DW-15 has slated that she was minor when she became Sadhvi. Further stated that there is no
yardstick to become Sadhvi in Dera Sacha Sauda. Further stated that prosecutrix PW-5 came to attend Dera in July, 1999
and left Dera Sacha Sauda in April, 2001. Further stated that prosecutrix PW-10 came to Dera Sacha Sauda in July, 1998
and left in the month of September, 1999. Further stated that accused lives in a place which is called as 'Gufa'. Further
stated that as per her knowledge, both the prosecutrix have levelled allegations of rape against the accused. Further
denied the suggestion that one of the egress of the Gufa opens in Girls Hostel. Further stated that Inder Sain was Manager
of Dera Sacha Sauda Sirsa at one given time. Further stated that Girls Hostel is situated in old Dera. Further stated that
during her stay in Dera. approx. 15-20 Sadhvis had left Dera including two Sadhvis i.e. prosecutrix PW-10 and her sister.

46. The defence has further examined DW-16 Gurdas Ram, who has proved registered sale deed No. 514 dated 31.7.2001 as
Ex. DW9/A. He has deposed that at the time of execution of sale deed, Ranjit Singh was present at that time.
47. The defence has further examined DW-17 Ram Nath, who has stated that photograph of vendors, vendee and attesting
witnesses were clicked on the original sale deed as well as its copy and identified the photo of Ranjit Singh at Mark A on
sale deed No. 658 dated 31.7.2001 Ex. DB.
48. The defence has further examined DW-18 Nath Singh, who is attesting witness to the sale deed No. 4897 dated
29.11.2001 and identified his thumb impressions on sale deeds Ex. DW12/A and Ex. DW12/B respectively. Further stated
that he identified the photograph of Ranjit Singh on Ex. DW12/A and also on sale deed Ex. DW12/B at mark B. During cross-
examination, he has admitted that no consideration was passed in his presence.
49. The defence has further examined DW-19 Amar Nath, who has deposed that Jyoti and Sonia are has daughters. Jyoti
had been a teacher in MDN School, Kalayat from 1999 to 2002. Further stated that Vijay Kumar was owner and Principal of
above-said school and he is Secretary of Taraksheel Society, Kalavat and one Raja Ram Handia was Manager of said
society. That Vijay Kumar came to know that Jyoti was interested to join school of Dera Sacha Sauda and she was also
encouraging other teachers to do so. That in May, 2002 Vijay Kumar had asked Jyoti to read some anonymous letter
containing obscene and filthy language and Jyoti felt annoyed and she told this fact to him that thereafter he went to the
house of Vijay Kumar but did not Sound there and then he went to the house of Raja Ram where Vijay Kumar was also
present and asked him as to why he had shown obscene letter to Jyoti and both of them misbehaved him, upon which he
made a complaint against them and both of them were called by the police and were reprimanded by the SHO for showing
upon above-said letter to Jyoti. Further stated that Vijay Kumar and Raja Ram Handia admitted that aforesaid obscene
letter was got typed by them and got circulated in order to defame Dera Sacha Sauda and the same was shown to Jyoti so
as to desist from joining school of Dera Sacha Sauda. Further stated that both of them accepted their mistake and pleaded
not to lodge any complaint and got the matter settled and the matter was compromised on their assurance not to repeat
such mistake in future. During cross-examination, the witness stated that he had never visited Sirsa in his life. Further
stated that he had not seen the aforesaid anonymous letter which was shown to his daughter Jyoti. Further stated that he
did not remember the date and month when the aforesaid compromise was handed over by him to CBI.
50. The defence has further examined DW-20 Banarsi Dass Bansal, who has deposed that he is practicing as an Advocate
since 1966 in Fatehabad Courts, Haryana and deposed that he had attested the affidavit Ex. D1 on 4.10.2002 on the asking
of prosecutrix B who was identified by Rajinder Kumar and her father-in-law Tek Chand. During cross-examination, this
witness has admitted that he had not entered the affidavit in his register maintained by him. Further stated that he was
appointed as Notary Public in the year 1994 and he used to maintain register regarding attestation of affidavit by him.
Further stated that there is no rule depicting that one type of affidavits are to be entered in the register and other type of
affidavits are not entered in the register. Further stated that contents of affidavit type written has no date, however his
attestation bear the date as 04.10.2002.
51. The defence has further examined DW-21 Banwari Lal who has deposed that he was initiated in Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa
by Param Pita Shah Satnam Ji in the year 1969. That on 28.5.2000 he was present in Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa and on that
day he made entries in the marriage register maintained by Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa, regarding marriages performed in the
Dera and proved entry Ex. PW12/DB made by him. Further stated that this entry pertains to marriage between Sujan Chand
and Sapna @ Nazam who had signed the same. Further stated that the aforesaid marriage was performed under the
blessings of Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh and a lunch was offered after the marriage and he had also enjoyed the lunch on the

invitation of Mulakh Raj.
52. The defence has further examined DW-22 Ms. Paramjit, who has deposed that she was posted as Warden in the hostel
of Shall Satnam Ji Girls School, Sirsa from 1994 to December, 2006. Further stated that Sudesh was working as Assistant
Warden and prosecutrix B and A were employed as teachers in Shah Satnam Ji Girls School. Sirsa and were staying in the
hostel. Further stated that she had neither asked prosecutrix A to go to Gufa nor reprimanded her. Further stated that
prosecutrix A came to Hostel in the month of July, 1999 and left hostel in the month of April, 2001. That the allegations
levelled by prosecutrix A against Guruji are totally false. Further stated that prosecutrix A had left hostel and school on
account of humiliation felt by her due to letters sent to her by one boy. Further stated that prosecutrix B and her sister left
the hostel as they intended to marry. Further stated that she had seen prosecutrix A reading, writing and signing and
identified the hand-writing and signatures of prosecutrix A on letter Mark DC/Ex. DW22/1. During cross-examination, DW-22
has stated that there are two Deras familiarly called as New Dera Sacha Sauda and old Dera Sacha Sauda. Further stated
that there is a Gufa in both the Deras and those are simple houses which are being referred as Gufa by devotees of Dera
Chief. Further stated that Inder Sain was Prabandhak of Dera Sacha Sauda Sirsa from 1999 to 2006. Further stated that
food for Dera Chief in New Dera Sacha Sauda Sirsa was being prepared by Dharam Singh, Langri.
53. The defence has further examined DW-23 Roshan Lal Aggarwal, who has stated that he is practicing as an Advocate
since August, 1976 and was appointed as Notary Public on 7th May, 1998 for District Ambala. This witness has proved
affidavit of Khatta Singh as Ex. DW23/1.
54. The defence has further examined DW-24 ASI Sita Ram. who has stated that certified copy of complaint dated
26.4.2007 is Ex. DW24/1, copy of statement of Khatta Singh is Ex. DW24/2 and report of Dy. SP (HQ) on the above
complaint is Ex. DW24/3, During cross-examination, this witness has stated that no complaint was received in his presence
and no report was made in his presence. It is pertinent to mention here that DW-24 ASI Sita Ram has also been examined
as DW-33 as well and while testifying as DW-33, this witness has stated that in normal course of business of their office,
the record is destroyed after every two years and record pertaining to the year 2002 has also been destroyed. Further
stated that he had seen the record brought to the court by ASI Mahavir Singh, Talfi Mohrrir and record pertaining to
24.5.2002 is Mark DW33/DA. complaint Mark DW33/DB, inquiry report Mark DW33/DC and further report of SP Mark DW33-DD
have also been destroyed. Further stated that Talfi register is maintained in SP office pertaining to destruction of record of
entire district. That he has not seen Talfi register pertaining to the year 2002 but he has seen Talfi register pertaining to
the year 2005.
55. The defence has further examined DW-25 Krishan Pal Chauhan, who has deposed that he resided in Kurukshetra from
1986 to 2000. Since April, 2000 he is residing in Sirsa. Further stated that his children used to study in Shah Satnam Ji Girls
School, Sirsa and they resided in hostel and after April, 2000 they started residing with him at Sirsa. Further slated that
while he was living at Kurukshetra he was having family terms with Ranjit Singh and prosecutrix A is sister of Ranjit Singh
(since deceased) and he used to treat her as sister and still maintaining that relation. Ranjit Singh was follower and Sewak
of Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa and used to visit Dera till his death. Further stated that the prosecutrix A was pursuing her
studies in Kurukshetra University and one Sahab Singh Walia used to tease her at that time and she used to come at his
house on account of that reason, due to teasing by that boy prosecutrix A was sent to Shah Satnam Ji Girls School, Sira as
teacher and when Sahab Singh Walia came to know about her appointment, then he used to post love letters at the
address of Shah Satnam Ji Girls School Sirsa and staff of Girls School came to know about the aforesaid letters and
prosecutrix A felt humiliated on account of the same and told him about this. Further stated that when she left Shah
Satnam Ji Girls School, she came to his residence at Sirsa and staved overnight and then she had disclosed the aforesaid

facts and at that time she had also disclosed that she had written a letter and gave it to Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh. Further
stated that a case was lodged against Paramjit Singh, brother-in-law of Ranjit Singh, on account of fake and fabricated LIC
policy of Ranjit Singh and said case was initially investigated by crime branch, Madhuban and thereafter it was investigated
by CBI That one Krishan Lal. resident of Sirsa had also lodged a case against CBI officer for beating him in CBI office.
Prosecutrix A had falsely deposed in the court against the accused because CBI had lodged a case against Paramjit. Further
stated that he used to visit Shah Satnam Ji Girls Hostel. Sirsa along-with Ranjit Singh and used to meet his children,
children of Ranjit Singh and prosecutrix A and prosecutrix A and her family members also used to visit his house at Sirsa.
Further stated that his statement was recorded by CBI through Dr. Armaandeep Singh and Mr. Satish Dagar and he had
disclosed aforesaid facts to the CBI. Further stated that anonymous letter was published and distributed by opponents of
Dera Sacha Sauda in order to malign the reputation of Dera and accused. During cross-examination, this witness has stated
that some teachers, namely, Sarita, Charanpreet, Paramjit Kaur Warden and Sudesh Rani, Assistant Warden and others
were present in the marriage of prosecutrix A solemnized in the month of October, 2001 and he had attended the said
marriage. Further stated that he never met Sahab Singh Walia.
56. The defence has further examined DW-26 Shiv Charan, who has deposed that he was posted as Dy. SP (HQ) Sirsa in
April/May, 2007. Further stated that complaint dated 26.4.2007 (Ex. DW24/1) was marked to him by the then SP for inquiry
and the said complaint was moved by Khatta Singh. Further stated that after inquiry, he prepared inquiry report Ex. DW24/3
bearing his signatures and after this inquiry, two gunmen were to be provided to Khatta Singh as is reflected as per order of
SP, Sirsa. He has also stated that he had recorded the statement of Khatta Singh which is Ex. DW24/2. During cross-
examination, this witness has admitted that he had not examined any other person except complainant to gather a fact of
fear alleged by the complainant. Further stated that he had not inquired as to the address and residence of Khatta Singh as
on date when statement of Khatta Singh was recorded by him.
57. The defence has further examined DW-27 Jitender Singh ASI (retd.), who has proved FIR No. 395 dated 30.09.2003
under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, PS City Thanesar, district Kurukshetra lodged by Azad
Singh, inspector CID (Crime) against Dharam Pal, LIC Agent, Smt. Kuldeep Vats. Amarjeet Singh Development Officer, Dr.
Deepak Sharma. SS Joly Manage, Beant Singh, record-keeper LIC Kurukshetra and Paramjit Singh, as Ex. DW27/1.
58. DW-28 Mrs. Sheela Punia, Principal of Shah Satnam JI Girls School, Sirsa, has deposed that she was employed as
Principal in Shah Satnam Ji Girls School, Sirsa from 07.07.1998 and Hostel of the School accommodates girls students of the
school. Further stated that hostel was supervised by Assistant Warden Sudesh and Warden Paramjit and now Asha Sharma
is Warden and Harsh is Assistant Warden. Further stated that some teachers also stay in aforesaid Hostel and both of them
were employed as teachers in the school Further stated that prosecutrix B started teaching in the school in June, 1997 or
1998 and left the school in the last week of September, 1999. That prosecutrix A remained in the school w.e.f. 5.7.1999 to
the last week of April, 2001. She has also stated that Rajni, real sister of prosecutrix B was also employed in the aforesaid
school. Further stated that when prosecutrix B was staying in the school, matrimonial negotiations were going on between
prosecutrix B and Sujan Sethi through Sujan's sister Usha and she left the school to get married with Sujan. Further stated
that some love letters were received at the school addressed to prosecutrix A and the same came to the notice of several
members and prosecutrix A felt humiliated and left the school. Further deposed that she identified the hand-writing ant;
signature of prosecutrix A and also identified the letter Ex. DW22/1 as written in the hand-writing of prosecutrix A and also
identified progress report card Ex. DA bearing signature/hand-writing of prosecutrix A. Further this witness proved
attendance register sheets Ex. DW28/1 to Ex. DW28/6 pertaining to period May, 2000, July, 2000, March, 2001, April 2001
and December, 1997 etc. and identified the signature of prosecutrix A on the said sheets. Further stated that appointment

letter, resignation letter, leave applications etc. were taken into possession by the CBI. During cross-examination, this
witness has stated that when she was alleviated to the post of Principal, the appointment letter was signed by committee
headed by Inder Sain, who was Manager of Dera Further stated that at that time, accused was religious head of Dera
Sacha Sauda and the accused has two daughters, namely, Charanpreet and Amarpreet who were students of aforesaid
school. Further stated that in the year 1998, Amarpreet was admitted in 5th class whereas Charanpreet was admitted in
8th class in the year 1996. Further stated that prosecutrix A and B had joined the school as teachers and they were not
Sadhvis. Further stated that as per her knowledge, accused lives in 2-3 rooms situated in New Dera Sacha Sauda. The
aforesaid hostel is situated near old Dera. She has further admitted that she is follower of Dera Sacha Sauda. However, this
witness has feigned ignorance as to the governing body of school bended by her in the year 1998.
59. The defence has also examined DW-29 Tek Chand, who is father-in-law of prosecutrix B. This witness has stated that
Sujan is youngest son and marriage of Sujan was solemnized in Dera Sacha Sauda Sirsa with prosecutrix B in May, 2000 and
Mulakh Raj Gambhir is father of prosecutrix B. Further stated that an entry/Ex. PW12/DB was made in the register of Dera
Sacha Sauda by some Sewadar with regard 10 solemnization of marriage of prosecutrix B and the same was signed by him,
Sujan Sethi, Mulakh Raj as well as prosecutrix B. This witness has stated that he is sikh by religion and that his family
members are Sikh except prosecutrix B and have no connection with Dera Sacha Sauda except prosecutrix B. Further stated
that the marriage of his son with prosecutrix B was performed at Dera Sacha Sauda Sirsa at the insistence of Mulakh Raj
and his family members including prosecutrix B. Further stated that people from CBI met prosecutrix B and they have never
pressurized or interfered with investigation of prosecutrix B. That CBI had interrogated prosecutrix B with regard to
anonymous Setter and she had stated that same was not written by her and facts mentioned in the letter were incorrect.
Further stated that prosecutrix B had also shown one attested affidavit to the CBI and original affidavit was taken by him
from prosecutrix B and same was handed over to Salish Dagar CBI officer along-with photo copy of said affidavit and original
copy was returned to prosecutrix B. Further stated that the original affidavit Ex D1 bears her signature at point E and the
same was got typed by prosecutrix B in his presence as well as in the presence of Rajinder Kumar and Typist Gurdial and the
same was attested by Banarsi Dass Advocate. Further stated that no one from the side of Dera Sacha Sauda contacted him
or his family member telephonically or otherwise. He has also deposed that his daughter Usha and Saroj kept on teaching for
about six months after the marriage of Sujan Sethi and also stated that his son Sujan Sethi has undergone treatment in
Dera Sacha Sauda Hospital. Gurusar Modia and prosecutrix B used to visit Dera Sacha Sauda Sirsa even after her marriage.
60. The defence has further examined DW-30 Sudesh Kumari, who was Assistant Warden in Shah Soman Ji Girls Hostel Sirsa
and has deposed on the lines of DW-28 Sheela Punia as to employment of prosecutrix A and B as teachers in the Dera
School. She has further stated that she had never asked prosecutrix A to have been called by the accused and had never
escorted her to the Gufa. During cross-examination, she has deposed on the lines of DW-28 as to stay of prosecutrix A and
B in the hostel. Further admitted that the place where accused was residing at that time was called as Gufa by disciples
and there were separate Gufas in both the Deras and there was a distance of about 6-7 KMS between two Deras. She has
feigned ignorance as to who was Inder Sain. She has also denied about intercom facility in the hostel. She has also
admitted that in the year 1996, Seema, Kailash, Manju, Birpal and Surender etc. were residing in the hostel.
61. The defence has further examined DW-31 Navninder Kaur, who has deposed that she had never deputed prosecutrix A
and B or any other girl at the outer gate of Gufa in old Dera. During cross-examination, this witness has stated that she was
appointed by Inder Sain, Manager of Shah Satnam Ji Girls School. As to the court question regarding difference between
Sadhvi and a teacher, this witness has replied that she found no apparent difference between one Sadhvi and teachers.

62. The defence has further examined DW-32 Mohan Singh, who has deposed that none of the prosecutrix A of B is known
to him and he had no occasion to talk with anyone of them. During cross-examination. he has admitted that he is follower of
Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa.
63. The defence has further examined DW-34 Rai Singh, who has deposed that he was posted as Dy. S.P. in Sirsa City in
May, 2002 and stated that he had inquired complaint (Ex. PW15/3) pertaining to Dera Sacha Sauda and submitted his report
Ex. DW34/DA. Further stated that the aforesaid inquiry was marked to him by the then SP vide order Ex. DW34/DB. During
cross-examination, this witness has feigned ignorance as to the fact as to whether learned District & Sessions Judge, Sirsa
was directed to inquire into the facts mentioned in the anonymous letter by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
This witness has also feigned ignorance as to significance of words written and encircled as Mark X on Mark DW33/DB.
64. The defence has further examined DW-35 Gurdial Taneja, who has deposed that he had typed affidavit Ex. D1 at the
instance of prosecutrix B.
65. The defence has further examined DW-36 ESI Rishal Singh, who has deposed that he remained posted as gunman of
accused from 19.02.1992 to 21.04.1998 and from 22.5.1998 to 08.07.1999 and then till 07.11.2005 except leave of 13 days
in buy, 1999. He has further stated that he used to perform duty from 7.00 8.00 a.m. to 10.00/1. 00 p.m. with the accused.
Further stated that new Dera was constructed up to October, 1993 and thereafter, the accused used to live in a Gufa at
New Dera and he used to visit old Dera rarely. He has also deposed that he found environment of New Dera as well as Old
Dera very good during his posting period. During cross-examination, this witness has stated that he had not seen District &
Sessions Judge. Sirsa in Dera Sacha Sauda in connection with any inquiry. He has also denied having met Dy. SP Sirsa in the
year 2002.
66. The defence has further examined DW-37 Shri Dharam Singh, who has deposed that he was working as Langri with Shall
Satnam Ji Maharaj and after demise of Shah Satnam Ji Maharaj in the year 1991. he is still working as Langri/Sewadar with
the accused and claims the accused to he as spiritual Guru. This witness has denied that Inder Sain, erstwhile Prabandhak
of Dera Sacha Sauda, had handed over any site plan/letter etc. for onward handing over to any CBI officer. This witness
has admitted in his cross-examination that Inder Sain was Manager of Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa.
Court Witness
67. It is pertinent to mention here that in pursuance to directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Special Leave to
Appeal (Criminal) Nos. 7262 and 7306 of 2016, Sh. K.L. Raina was summoned as Court witness and accordingly, examined as
CW1. CW1 K.L. Raina has deposed that investigation of this case was handed, over to him in July, 2003 after transfer of
S.S. Sandhu, the then DSP and after getting the investigation he continued with the investigation with regard to authorship
of anonymous letter as well as the allegations made in the said letter. He has also stated that he remained investigating
officer in this case for about 6-7 months and in the month of January 2004, proceedings in this case were stayed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and accordingly, be stopped his investigation in compliance of that order. During cross-examination
by learned defence counsel, this witness has stated that he could not say that prosecutrix A and prosecutrix B were victims
when: he was investigating this case. He has also stated that prosecutrix B did not level any allegation with her by the
accused and that she did not told to hum that accused was like her father and she did not told to him that her marriage
was solemnized in the Dera premises. He has also stated that during his investigation, Sadhvi prosecutrix A did not level any
allegation of rape with her by the accused and other Sadhvis also did not level any allegation of rape by the accused during
his investigation. This witness has volunteered that prosecutrix A had told to him that everything was not right in the Dera

and that some other girl/Sadhvi Rajneesh had also disclosed that everything was not right in she Dera. Further during cross-
examination by learned SPP for CBI this witness has stated that during his investigation, prosecutrix A had disclosed to him
the reason of leaving the Dera was that everything was no; right in the Dera. He has also admitted in his cross-examination
that during his investigation also, prosecutrix A and prosecutrix B were suspected victims. He has also voluntarily stated
that prosecutrix A had also disclosed to him that daughters of her brother had also been withdrawn from the Dera and she
also disclosed that Dera people suspected involvement of her brother in the circulation of anonymous letter.
68. While opening up their arguments, learned Special PPs for CBI have argued that there is cogent and reliable evidence to
the effect that both the prosecutrix A and B were ravished by the accused at different point of time while the prosecutrix
were residing in the premises of Dera Sacha Sauda headed by the accused. It is pointed out that the instant case is
peculiar one as the investigation of this case was handed over to the CBI on the directions of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab
and Haryana by taking cognizance of anonymous letter Mark-A/Ex. PW15/3 received in the Hon'ble High Court and since
initially there was no clue available to the investigating agency as to the victim(s) of the alleged offence, therefore no
medico-legal examination of any such victim could have been conducted. It is argued that as per anonymous letter, sterling
allegations were made that Sadhvis residing in the Dora Sacha Sauda are being sexually exploited by committing rape upon
them by accused Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh and the victims and their families were staunch followers of Dera Sacha
Sauda. being headed by accused Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh and initially no one was ready to come forth to co-operate with
investigating agency in its endeavour to bring out the truth and therefore, in such type of cases, investigation is to be and
has been conducted on the basis of records made available by the concerned quarters. It has further been submitted that
accordingly the investigating agency asked the Manager, Dera Sacha Sauda Sirsa to provide lists of Sadhvis who were
residing in the Dera. list of Sadhvis who had already left the Dera etc. etc. and thereafter, the investigating agency
received three lists on 23.02.2005 under the signatures of Inder Sain. the then Manager, Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa, wherein
it was mentioned that 53 Sadhvis were residing in Shah Satnam Ji Girls Hostel, 80 Sadhvis were residing in Ashram Dera
Sacha Sauda, Sirsa and 24 Sadhvis had left the Dera Sacha Sauda and thereafter, the investigating agency traced out 18
Sadhvis who had already got married and had settled in life and examined them in the light of allegations made in the
anonymous letter, on the basis of which FIR was lodged initially against the accused on 12.: 2.2002. It is argued that some
of the Sadhvis examined by the investigating agency during the initial stage of its investigation had apprehended danger to
their lives if they spoke the truth and therefore, instant case cannot be equated and compared with other cases of rape
ever reported in he history of mankind. Further submitted that taking a clue from initial examination of some Sadhvis, who
hesitated to speak out the truth and also from the report Ex. PW11/C made by learned District & Sessions Judge Sirsa, it
transpired that possibility of such acts (sexual exploitation of Sadhvis by the accused) could not be altogether ruled out
and accordingly, further investigation was carried out and two of the victims i.e. prosecutrix A and B gathered courage to
speak the truth and both these victims have also testified before the court, thereby cogently establishing the guilt of the
accused beyond all shadows of reasonable doubt.
69. It is further argued that statements of both the victims are to be treated as statements of injured witnesses which
require no further corroboration. Moreover, it is also argued, that statements of prosecutrix A and B find sufficient
corroboration them other evidence on record and leave no manner of doubt that it was the accused who had committed
rape upon them and threatened them of dire consequences in case they dared to raise a voice against him. It is also argued
that prosecutrix A has categorically deposed that accused committed rape upon he, during night of 28/29 August, 1999 and
then repeated the crime after some time and threatened to finish her entire family and therefore, she did not immediately
report the unlawful act of the accused for fear and reprisal from the Dera people. It is further pointed out that the factum
of residing of prosecutrix A in the premises of Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa during the period w.e.f. July, 1999 to April, 2001 is

not in dispute and many of the defence witnesses have admitted this factum and moreover most of the facts i.e. residence
of accused known as Gufa employment of one Sudesh in the Dera, calling of accused as Pita Ji in the Dera etc. etc. finds
corroboration vide testimonies of other prosecution witnesses as well as defence witnesses themselves and in such
circumstances, the testimony of this witness is natural, trust-worthy and reliable. Moreover, it is argued, the same again
finds corroboration in the statement of another victim i.e. prosecutrix B (PW10), who was also ravished by the accused
during her stay in the Dera premises.
70. It is pointed out that statement of prosecutrix B corroborates testimony of prosecutrix A/PW-5 qua other aspects
regarding putting of Sadhvis on sentry duty, residing of the accused in the Gufa, manner of committee rape by the accused
etc Further argued that stay of prosecutrix B in the Dera premises also finds corroboration vide testimonies of defence
witnesses themselves. It is also argued that prosecutrix B has also elaborately deposed regarding the threats extended by
Dera people to resile in the court from her statement made to the investigating agency. which in turn furnish the reasons of
not reporting the incidents of committing rape by these victims to the police. It is also pointed out that prosecutrix B was
not ready to disclose her place of employment and place of residence due to security reasons, despite insistence on the
part of defence counsel to disclose the same in her cross-examination, which again fortify her assertions regarding constant
threats to her life in case she disclosed the crime committed by the accused. It is also pointed that the defence has
squarely failed to assign any motive, whatsoever, of prosecutrix B regarding any possibility of false implication of the
accused.
71. It is also pointed out that prosecutrix A/PW-5 has also corroborated the statement of PW-10/prosecutrix B regarding
the threats extended by the accused after committing rape upon them and such threats got translated into reality where
brother, namely, Ranjit Singh, of prosecutrix A was murdered on 10.07.2002. It is also argued that though prosecutrix A in
her initial statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded on 25.2.2005 has not alleged any sexual assault upon her, however
her statement provided indicative facts that something fishy had happened with her during her stay in the Dera as she had
stated that the wanted to forget everything about Dera affairs and she has further stated as to why she wanted to forget
everything about Dera by saying that Dera people were dangerous persons, which fact reflects that prosecutrix A at that
time had genuine apprehension of danger at the hands of Dera people and finally prosecutrix A gathered courage to speak
the truth and came out will version in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 27.7.2006 that she was sexually
exploited and raped by the accused during her stay in Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa. Further argued that prosecutrix A has
categorically deposed that she gathered courage after arrest of killers of her brother and disclosed about the entire incident
to her husband, who extended moral support to her. It is also pointed out that prosecutrix A has duly proved her statement
Ex. PW5/A recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 19.3.2007, which again fortify her assertions as to commission of subject
offences by the accused. It is also pointed out that there is no improvement whatsoever in the statements of prosecution
witnesses. It is also pointed out that PW6/Paramjit Singh was examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 25.02.2005 and he
ha-, disclosed sexual exploitation of prosecution-A by the accused. It is also argued that there was no motive on the part
of prosecutrix A to falsely implicate the accused and therefore, statements of both these prosecutrix are categorical to the
effect that it was the accused who had committed rape upon them during the relevant period in the Dera premises and
accordingly, accused is liable to be held guilty and punished as per law. It is also argued that not only the prosecutrix A and
B corroborate each other's statements on material aspects, rather their statements also find corroboration from statements
of PW-6 Paramjit Singh, PW-7 Joginder Singh and PW-12 Sujan Sethi also. It is also argued that PW-12 Sujan Sethi lends
corroboration to the statement of prosecutrix B/PW-10 en all material aspects, such as disclosing of incident of rape
committed by the accused upon her, the conduct of his immediate family members who were blind followers of Dera and also

about the threats extended to them by Dera people to resile from their statements while deposing in the court and the
defence has failed to establish any inherent contradictions in the depositions of PW-10 and PW-5 on any material aspect.
Further contended that likewise statement of prosecutrix A/PW-5 finds corroboration from the testimonies of PW-6 and PW-
7. It is also argued that polygraph tests were conducted on Inder Sain, Manager, Dera Sacha Sauda and Krishan Lal whose
responses have been found to be deceptive one, which in turn fortify the prosecution case and in this regard, statement of
PW-8/Dr. P. Paul Ramesh and PW-9 Dr. Amod Kumar Singh remained un-impeached Further contended that the defence has
failed to improbablize thr prosecution case in any manner and therefore, prosecution has successfully proved the charges
against the accused with which he has been charge sheeted. It is also argued that the accused in his statement under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. has pleaded that he was impotent at the relevant time, however there is not an iota of evidence on
record to establish such a plea and therefore, any such unsubstantiated plea of an accused would furnish an additional
circumstance in the guilt of the accused It is also pointed out that such plea of impotency on part of the accused gets
belied by the defence witnesses themselves as DW-28 Sheela Punia, in her cross-examination has stated that the accused
has two daughters, namely, Charanpreet and Amarpreet who were studying in 5th and 8th class respectively in the year
1998 and 1996. Moreover, there is no medical evidence on record to establish plea of impotency on part of the accused,
rather accused was blessed with children, which in turn would clearly establish virility of the accused.
72. It is further contended that so far as statements of defence witnesses are concerned, the same do not diminish the
prosecution case in any manner as most of the witnesses are either followers of Dera or connected intimately with the Dera
and are interested and tutored witnesses and have failed to establish facts which improbablize the prosecution case, rather
the testimonies of these defence witnesses lend corroboration to prosecutrix version on many material aspects i.e.
regarding residence of the accused called as Gufa in the old Dera as well as in the new Dera, period of stay of prosecutrix A
and B in Dera premises, fact that Inder Sain was Manager of Dera Sacha Sauda, fact that one Sudesh was Assistant
Warden of hostel at Dera Sacha Sauda, fact that Dera premises comprised Old Dera as well as new Dera etc.
73. It is further contended that though defence has examined DW-4 Rajinder Kumar, DW-20 Banarsi Dass Bansal DW-29
Tek. Chand Sethi and DW35/Gurdayal Taneja to prove affidavit Ex. D1 purported to have been executed by prosecutrix B
out of her own volition however. their testimonies are not believable in view of the statement if prosecutrix B who has
explained as to how her signatures were obtained on the said document. It is pointed out that prosecutrix B has specifically
deposed that stamp paper (used for preparing Ex. D1) was purchased by her sister-in-law (Nanad) and defence has not put
any question to her to suggest that the stamp was ever purchased by her only. It is also argued 'hat mere signing of a
document by a person does not prove us contents and when prosecutrix B has herself explained the circumstances under
which she was pressurized to put signatures on said document, then no advantage can be derived out of the same in favour
of the accused. Moreover it is also argued that there was no occasion to obtain such an affidavit from her on 4.10.2002 as
no investigating agency had approached prosecutrix B regarding investigation of this case at the relevant time. Rather the
factum of preparing such an affidavit Ex. D1 and possession of the same in the hands of accused (as affidavit Ex. D1 was
put to the prosecutrix P. by the defence) would point towards guilty mind of the accused as only the accused was knowing
as to which Sadhvi had been sexually exploited by him and since investigation by the CBI had been ordered by the Hon'ble
High Court of Punjab and Haryana on 24.9.2002. so possess on of such an affidavit by the accused would rather be
incriminating evidence against him instead of absolving him of his guilt is also argued that DW-29 Tek Chand Sethi has
himself stated that original of Ex. D1 was given back to prosecutrix B/PW-10 by the CBI, but the same has been put to her
in her cross-examination by the accused and thus how it came into the hands of accused remains un-explained. Further
argued that DW-29 Tek Chand Sethi has not truthfully deposed as is made out in his cross-examination and moreover, the
photographs Ex. DW29/10 and Ex. DW29/7 depicting him is wearing locket of Dera Sacha Sauda and inscription of 'Dhan

Dhan Satguru Tera Hi Aasra' on the front portion of his house in the photograph Ex. DW29/12 would make out that he was
staunch follower of Dera Sacha Sauda and has deposed untruthfully by saving that he is Sikh by religion and has never been
associated with Dera Sacha Sauda.
74. Learned Special PP further argued that defence witnesses i.e. DW-7, DW-8, DW-9. DW-10, DW-12 DW-13. DW-14, DW-
16, DW-17 and DW-18 are the witnesses who have brought on record four sale deeds i.e. sale deed Ex. DB dated
31.7.2001. sale deed Ex DW9-A dated 31.7.2001, sale deed Ex. DW12/A dated 20.11.2001. sale deed Ex. DW12/B dated
29.11.2001, however neither of these witnesses are related to the offence of sexual harassment upon prosecutrix A and B
by the accused and therefore, statements of these witnesses cannot be of any help to the defence. Further pointed out
that DW-1 Balwinder Singh and DW-11 Gulshan Lal have deposed in same tone and tenor as to taking back of prosecutrix B
by her father Mulakh Raj in the last week of September, 1999 and marriage of prosecutrix B in the premises of New Hera
Complex. However, prosecutrix B has herself admitted the factum of her marriage taking place in the Dera premises and
explained that the same took place as per the wishes of her in-laws who were staunch Dera followers and moreover, DW-11
in his cross-examination has admitted that he is a follower of Dera Sacha Sauda and the same clearly reveals that he is
interested witness and the same cannot be held to have been able to prosecution witnesses in any manner, It is also
argued that statement of DW-11 made voluntarily in his cross-examination regarding disclosure of prosecutrix B to the
effect that she was lapped by some drug mafia routed by some Sikh Jathabandis and threat to her life at their hands is a
clear indication that this witness is much interested in the accused as he has introduced some facts which are totally
concocted and unsubstantiated. It is also pointed out that there is no such stand taken by the defence while cross-
examining prosecutrix B PW-10. Further argued that so far as pica of implied alibi taken by the accused by examining DW-
.36 ESI Rishal Singh, is concerned, the same is also not of any help to the defence as self serving oral statement of this
witness cannot be held to be sufficient to make out that he had remained posted as gunman with the accused during the
relevant as there is no corroborating documentary evidence to make out that this witness was in fact initially deputed as
gunman with the accused. It is also pointed out that this witness has also deposed against established facts on record
when he feigned ignorance as to the visit of learned District & Sessions Judge, Sirsa in Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa in
connection with an inquiry, even though learned District. & Sessions Judge, Sirsa had submitted report Ex. PW11/C in
compliance of the directions passed by Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana on the anonymous letter and tenor of the
report Ex. PW11/C would clearly suggest that learned District & Sessions Judge, Sirsa made the report after visiting the
Dera premises.
75. It is further contended that so far as absence of reports of medical examination of victims is concerned, PW-15,
Investigating Officer has given plausible reasoning for not getting the prosecutrix medically examined as occurrence had
taken place much prior in time and both the prosecutrix had settled in life after getting married and such a report would
have been of no use in such circumstances. Moreover, it is argued that both the prosecutrix had attained the age of
majority at the time of commission of crime by the accused and non-examination of major victims medically cannot be held
to be fatal to the prosecution case. It is further submitted that mere non-preparation of site plan by the Investigating
Officer would not affect the prosecution case much, especially when the existence of the Gufa i.e. the place of occurrence
is not at all denied and moreover the occurrence dates back to the year 1999 and the investigating agency started its
investigation after 2-3 years of the occurrence when the case was ordered to be investigated by the CBI on the directions
of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana Further argued that PW-15/Satish Dagai/Investigating Officer has explained the
circumstances under which he did not prepare the site plan of the place of incident, as Manager, namely, Inder Sain of the
Dera told him to get prepared the proper site plan and had in fact sent such a site plan Ex. PW15/13 along-with forwarding

latter Ex. PW15/12 and forwarding letter Ex. PW15/12 is on the letter head of Dera Sacha Sauda Sirsa, which in turn make
out that Inder Sain, who was Manage of the Dera had in fact supplied the site plan Ex. PW15 as well as lists of Sadhvis Ex.
PW15/11, as no suggestion regarding fabrication of the letter Ex. PW15/12 has been put by the defence to the
Investigating Officer of the case Moreover, the defence has neither included Inder Sain in the list of defence witnesses nor
examined him to deny the factum of supply of lists of Sadhvis and about the site plan stated to be furnished by him on the
letter head of Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa To fortify then arguments reliance has also been placed on the cases titled as State
of Punjab Vs Gurmit Singh, 1996 (1) Recent CR, 133 (SC); Santosh Moolya & Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka, 2010
CriLJ 2892 (SC); Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai Vs State of Gujarat RC 1983 (SC) 192; Om Parkash Vs. State of
Haryana (P&H), 1991 (1) RCR (Crl) 265: State of Himachal Pradesh Vs Gian Chand 2001 (2) RCR (Crl), 666 (SC);
Tulsidas Kanolkar Vs State of Goa, SC 2003 (4) RCR (Crl) 964; State of Himachal Pradesh Vs Asha Ram, 2006 (1)
RCR (Crl) 139 SC; Mukesh Vs State of Chhattisgarh, 2014 (4) RCR (Crl) 447 (SC); Mukesh & others Vs State of NCT
of Delhi & others, Criminal Appeal Nos. 609-10 of 2017 decided on 05.05.2017; State of West Bengal Vs Mir Mohd.
Umar and others, JT 2000 (9) SC 467 and finally argued that all the charges against the accused stand duly established
and hence accused be held guilty and punished as per law
76. On the other hand, learned defence counsel argued that accused has been falsely implicated in this case and no
offence whatsoever was committed by the accused, the entire case of the prosecution suffers from material infirmities and
statements of prosecutrix do not inspire confidence at all. It is argued that none of the prosecutrix of anybody else ever
lodged any complaint regarding the alleged occurrence and the case has merely been set up on the basis of an anonymous
letter whose author has not been ascertained till date by the investigating agency. It is also argued that allegations pertain
to the year 1999. however the prosecutrix have come up with the allegations after more than six years and thus, there has
been huge delay, which itself make the entire prosecution case a figment of imagination and not having any truth in it. It is
contended that statement of prosecutrix cannot be taken as gospel truth and it would still be subject to judicial scrutiny
lest a casual, routine and automatic acceptance thereof results in unwanted conviction of the person charged.
77. It is also argued that statements of prosecutrix have been recorded after unjustified and unexplained long delay on the
part of Investigating Officers, which in turn would render the evidence of such witnesses unreliable. It is pointed out that
even though the matter was entrusted to the CBI in September 2002, yet the prosecutrix have been examined in the year
2005 & 2006, thereby rendering the statements of prosecutrix prone to falsehood, concoction and motivated one. It is
contended that the manner of recording the statements of prosecution witnesses, especially the prosecutrix speaks a lot
that tainted investigation was carried out and this very factor shakes the credibility of the statements of such witnesses.
To buttress his arguments in this regard, reliance has been placed on case titled as Balakrushna Swain Vs. the Stale of
Orissa 1971 CRI.L.J. 670 & Sudershan Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh 2015 (1) RCR (Criminal) 496.
78. It is further contended that prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the defence has only to
produce evidence or show from the material on record which probablize its defence and the prosecution has squarely failed
to discharge onus of proving its ease as per settled legal principles. It is also contended that in a case of rape, the onus is
always on prosecution to prove affirmatively each ingredient of the offence it seeks to establish and such onus never shifts
and it is no part of the duty of the defence to explain as to how and why in a rape case the victim have falsely implicated
the accused. That there is initial presumption of innocence of the accused and the accused is entitled to the benefit of
every reasonable doubt as the prosecution has to bring home the offence to the accused by reliable evidence. Further
contended that it is also settled principle of law that prosecution cannot take support from the weakness of the case of
defence. To fortify his submissions, reliance has been placed upon case titled as Balwan Singh Vs. State of Haryana

2005 (3) CRI. CC 50, Dhruvendra Singh and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan 2002 (2) RCR (Criminal) 185 and
Narender Kumar Vs. State NCT of Delhi 2012 (3) RCR (Criminal) 66 and at accordingly argued that prosecution failed to
disclose true genesis of the crime and depositions of prosecutrix do not inspire confidence and hence, accused is entitled to
honourable acquittal.
79. It is further contended that there has been totally faulty and biased investigation in this case. In this context, it is
argued that the investigating agency has not examined material witnesses in order to bring out the truth in the matter. It is
pointed out that challan in this case has been filed against the accused on the basis of investigation conducted by the CBI
into the allegations levelled in an anonymous letter however, investigating agency has failed to identify author of said
anonymous letter till date. It is also argued that there is reference of certain persons in the statement of prosecutrix
recorded during she course of investigation, but all such persons have not been examined. It is pointed out that there is
mention/reference of Sudesh Kumari, Paramjit, Navninder, Rishu, Gurjot etc. in the statements of both the prosecutrix,
however, none of these material witnesses have been examined by the prosecution for the reasons best known to it and
therefore, adverse inference is to be drawn against the prosecution.
80. It is also pointed out that there is also reference of revolver, bed. blue-film etc. in the said anonymous letter, but no
recovery of any of such objects has ever been effected by the investigating agency It is also contended that prosecution
has further withheld in material witnesses and best available evidence has not been brought on record by non-examination
of such material witnesses on the mere ground of being won over or being unnecessary witness. In this regard, it is pointed
out that prosecution has given up Smt. Sarabjit Kaur, J.R. Kamth. K.L. Raina, Addl. S.P., Armaandeep Singh, Dy. S.P. etc. as
being unnecessary and has further given up PWs Mahi Pal Rana, Mulkh Raj, Rajnish Sharma, Raghunath Sharma, Swaran
Singh. Parminder Kaur, Khatta Singh, Jhanda Singh etc. as won over. It is further pointed out that Mulkh Raj is father of
prosecutrix B/PW10 and was the most material witness and therefore prosecution must have examined this witness instead
of giving up him as having been won over simply and thus, the prosecution has failed to elicit truth by non-examination of
such material witnesses. It is also pointed out that K.L. Raina, the then Dy. S.P. was again a material witness as he had
partly investigated the matter and has recorded the statement of victims but neither the statements of victims recorded by
this witness was ever supplied to the accused nor this witness was examined by the prosecution, thereby causing great
prejudice to the accused. Rather, it is argued, Mr. K.L. Raina was examined as court witness in pursuance to directions
passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court and further pointed out that Hon'ble Supreme Court has also observed that the defence
can place reliance on the evidence of Mr. K.L., Raina. It is also argued that testimony of CW1 K.L. Raina reveals that
Inspector Satya Narayan had recorded statements of both prosecutrix A & B, but again accused was not supplied with the
copies of such statements of prosecutrix and investigating agency has made deliberate attempt to conceal material facts
from the accused. It is argued that a material witness is still necessary to be examined to reveal the truth even if
prosecution thinks that lie/she has been won over. It is argued that even won over witness is to be examined so that he
could be duly confronted with his earlier statement recorded by the police so as to unravel the truth and prosecution is
obliged to produce him in the court to elicit the truth. It is also submitted that when a witness is simply given up, then an
adverse inference has to be drawn, against the prosecution to the effect that had he been examined, then be would have
deposed against the prosecution. In support of his arguments in tins regard, reliance has been placed upon case titled as
State of Punjab Vs. Surjit Singh 2008 (1) RCR (Criminal) 266, Karnail Singh Vs. Bishan Singh 2008 (3) RCR (Civil)
208, Darshan Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2013 (2) CRI. CC 413, Baldev Singh @ Deba Vs. State of Punjab 2033 (2)
CRI. CC 405, Din Dayal Vs. State of Punjab 2014 (1) CRI. CC 624, State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Litesh Dhawan &
Others, 2016 (3) RCR (Criminal) 458.

81. It is also argued 'hat the place of occurrence itself remained unproved as the prosecution failed to establish place of
occurrence by bringing on record duly prepared sue plan. It is pointed that neither the place of occurrence has been got
demarcated from the victims not the investigating officer prepared site plan himself and since place of occurrence is of
cardinal importance in a criminal trial, then the benefit of doubt must be extended to accused in case prosecution fails to
establish the place of occurrence by clinching, reliable and cogent evidence. Reliance in this regard has been placed upon
State of U P Vs. Didar Singh 2014 (3) Cri. CC 809 (Allahabad). In this regard, it is also pointed out that PW15 Satish
Dagar, Investigating Officer has admitted in his cross-examination that he did not prepare the site plan, rather he got the
same from one Krishan Lal, but again said Krishan Lal has pot been examined by the prosecution. It is contended that maps
or plans made for the purpose of any cause must be proved to be accurate and the same must be proved by the person
who made them. Reliance in this regard has been placed upon case titled as Damodaran Vs. Karimba Plantations AIR
1959 Kerala 358. It is also contended that onus of proving that a map/site plan is accurate lies on the party which
produces it and since maker of alleged site plan Ex. PW15/13 has not come into the witness box, therefore, no reliance can
be placed or, the same. In this regard, reliance has been, placed on case titled as Ushabai Vs. Wasudeo & Others, 2004
(3) Civil Court Cases 94 (Bombay).
82. It is also contended that neither the victims no the accused were ever medically examined and in such circumstances
prosecution case remains totally unsubstantiated. It is also contended that accused has never been medically examined to
ascertain his capacity to perform sexual intercourse and since accused has taken a specific plea in his examination u/s 313
of Cr.P.C. to the effect that since 1990, he is not medically and physically fit to do sex with any one and that he is not
potent and therefore in such circumstances, it was bounden duty of investigating agency to ascertain virility of the
accused and in the absence of the same, presumption of innocence can very well be taken qua the accused. To fortify his
submissions in this regard, reliance has been placed upon case titled as Ujjagar Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2008 (1) RCR
(Criminal) 305.
83. It is also argued that prosecutrix A/PW5 had animus towards Dera people on account of murder of her brother Ranjit
Singh by unknown assailants but due to alleged suspicion of Dera people in the said murder. Therefore, motive on the part
of this prosecutrix to implicate the accused falsely is apparent on record. It is also pointed out that both PW6 Paramjit
Singh & PW7 Joginder Singh were also nursing grudges against the Dera people on account of registration of FIR against
Paramjit Singh in LIC case and in this regard, reference has been made to cross-examination of PW6 Paramjit Singh wherein
said witness is stated to have admitted that FIR in LIC case was on account of the influence exerted by Baba Gurmeet Ram
Rahim Singh and was got registered by Dera people so that he may keep his mouth shut in making allegations in respect of
Ranjit Singh murder case. Further, reference has also been made to cross-examination of PW7 Joginder Singh where this
witness has stated that Inspector Azad of Crime Branch of State Police had got registered the LIC case against his son-in-
law Paramjit Singh at the instance of Dera people and accordingly argued that testimony of interested witnesses is liable to
be discarded.
84. It is also pointed out that prosecutrix A resided in the Dera for more than one year after the alleged occurrence and she
got enough opportunity to share about the alleged incident as per her admission that there was no restriction to listen to
discourses, but she choose not to do so and this very circumstance makes out falsity of the allegations. Further, it is also
argued that no woman of self respect would ever stay in the Dera premises had she been raped by the Dera chief and this
again is a material circumstance pointing out false implication of the accused. It is also pointed out that brother, namely,
Ranjit Singh, of prosecutrix A remained associated with the Dera till the end and this again falsify the allegation of rape upon
prosecutrix A. It is also pointed out that defence witnesses i.e. DW5 Sanjay Saini, DWG Surja Ram. DW7 Tarlok Chand, DW8

Sunil Kumar, DW10 Madhu Bala. DW12 Rajesh Kalyan, DW13 Bhupinder Singh, DW14 Sharda Rani, DW16 Gurdas Ram, DW17
Ram Nath, DW18 Naib Singh etc., have duly proved four sale deeds Ex. DB dated 31.07.2001, Ex. DW9/A dated 31.07.2001,
Ex. DW12/A & Ex. DW12/B dated 29.11.2001 and all these sale deeds have been got executed by deceased Ranjit Singh on
behalf of Dera Sacha Sauda and this very fact again makes it improbable that prosecutrix A was ever ravished by the
accused as no brother would ever have remained associated with the institution/Dera headed by the accused against whom
allegations of rape of his sister had been levelled. Further, reference has also been made to letter dated 04.10.2002 Ex.
DC/1 written by PW7 Joginder Singh to the Hon'ble Chief Justice, Punjab & Haryana High Court and pointed out that no
allegation of rape of prosecutrix A has been levelled in the said letter and further there is mention of striding certain items
for relief operations in Gujarat earthquake in January, 2001 and since this relief operation was organized by Dera Sacha
Sauda. Sirsa, thus association of Ranjit Singh during that period with Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa again reflects that no
occurrence allegedly took place with his sister prosecutrix A in the Dera premises during her stay there. It is also pointed
out that PW6 Paramjit Singh is an interested witness, being close relative of prosecutrix A/PW5. More-over, it is argued that
evidence of PW6 Paramjit Singh is nothing but hear-say evidence as the offence of alleged rape is stated to have been
disclosed to him by Ranjit Singh and not by prosecutrix A.
85. It is also pointed out that falsity of rape allegations qua prosecutrix A is again apparently made out in the light of
attendance registers Ex. DW28/1 to Ex. DW28/4 etc. In this regard, it is pointed out that as per deposition of PW5 alleged
occurrence of rape took place in the night of August 28/29, 1999 in the premises and new Dera and that accused told her
that he would send her to Old Dera as a teacher and on the next day, she came to Old Dera, meaning thereby that she
started working as teacher in the Old Dera after 28th August, 1999, However, as per attendance register sheets Ex.
DW28/1 to Ex. DW28/4 etc., it is apparently made out that she had been working as Teacher in the Old Dera since July 5,
1999 and this very fact falsify her entire allegations, especially when she has duly admitted Her signatures on the
attendance registers. It is also argued that prosecutrix A went to the Dera on account of pestering by one Sahab Singh as
has come out in the statements of PW5, PW6, PW7 and DW25/Krishan Pal Chauhan. Further, it is argued that prosecutrix A
left the Dera again on account of persistent harassment in the shape of sending love letters by said Sahab Singh in the
Dera premises and the fact of aforesaid love letters surfaced and came to the notice of other staff members in the
school/hostel and prosecutrix A felt humiliated and it was the real cause of leaving the Dera by the prosecutrix A. In this
regard, reference has been made to testimonies of DW22 Paramjit. Kaur, DW25 Krishan Pal Chauhan, DW28 Sheela Punia
etc. Further it is also pointed out that as per testimony of prosecutrix A/PW5, accused showed him some letters addressed
to her at the address of Dera at the time of committing alleged rape in the intervening night of 28/29th August 1999,
however, such letters brought on record as Mark 1 to Mark 11. pertain to period subsequent to year 2000 and this
circumstance again renders the testimony of prosecutrix A/PW5 unworthy of credence, simply because no such letter,
which is subsequent to the period of year 2000, could have been shown to the prosecutrix at the time of alleged
occurrence in the year 1999. It is also argued that there is presumption of service of registered A.D. letter and the
addressee has to prove that the letter was not delivered to him and since letters Mark 1 to Mark 11 were addressed to Dera
School, therefore, there is valid presumption of receipt of such letters on the dates mentioned thereon.
86. It is also argued that DW22 Paramjit has duly proved letter Ex. DW22/1 as this witness had seen prosecutrix A reading,
writing and signing and identified her handwriting and signatures on the said letter and tenor of letter Ex. DW22/1 would
suggest that prosecutrix A treated Baba Gurmeet Singh Ram Singh as her father and repented about mistake of her life,
which again improbablize the entire prosecution case. It is contended that any person acquainted with handwriting of scribe
can prove the same as per section 47 of Indian Evidence Act. It is submitted that it is settled legal proposition that the

writing may be proved to be in the handwriting of a particular person by the evidence of the person familiar with the
handwriting of that individual and thus, DW22 Paramjit has duly proved letter Ex. DW22/1 written by prosecutrix A. To
fortify his arguments, reliance has been placed upon case titled as Satish Nirankari Vs. State of Rajasthan 2007 CRI.L.J.
2983 and Fakrudin Vs. The State of M.P. AIR 1967 Supreme Court 1326.
87. Further argued that so far as statement of prosecutrix B is concerned, the same is totally un-reliable and does not
inspire confidence. It is argued that though prosecutrix B has stated that she disclosed factum of her sexual exploitation by
accused in her parents hut her parents never moved any complaint against the accused, which is not natural human
conduct expected of parents of a victim. It is further pointed out that father of prosecutrix B has not even been examined
by the prosecution in order to corroborate her statement. Further pointed out that prosecutrix B got married with Sujan
Sethi (PW-12) in May, 2000 i.e. after the alleged commission of rape and it is highly improbable that girl with little bit of self
respect would go to Dera premises had she been ravished by Chief of such Dera premises. In this regard it is pointed out
that prosecutrix B got her marriage solemnized in the Dera promises with the blessings of the accused and she had visited
the dera after her marriage. Further argued that not only this, all the relatives of prosecutrix B are still followers of Dera
Sacha Sauda, Sirsa and again this very fact improbablize the prosecution version qua commission of rape upon her by the
accused. It is also pointed out that prosecutrix B has stayed in Chhachia Nagari for 10-12 days and had gone these with
Baba, but accused admittedly did not do any wrong doing with her, so allegations of rape at Sirsa do no inspire confidence.
88. Further argued that so far as testimony of PW-12 is concerned, it is nothing but hear-say evidence about allegations of
rape and carries no evidentiary value in the eyes of law. It is also pointed out that there is contradiction regarding the time
of disclosing the fact of alleged commission of rape by prosecutrix B to her husband PW-12/Sujan Sethi. Moreover, it is
argued that parents of her husband have contradicted their statements and have stated that marriage of prosecutrix was
solemnized in Dera premises as per her wishes and prosecutrix B has even visited the Dera after marriage and was given
shagun by Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh and all these facts commutatively make out that allegations against the accused are
concocted one and have no element of truth in it.
89. It is also argued that as per the statement of prosecutrix B/PW10 recorded u/s. 161 of Cr.P.C. on 04.05.2006, her sister
Rajni was allegedly ravished by the accused, but neither said Rajni nor parents of prosecutrix B/PW10 have been examined
by the prosecutor, thereby doubting the veracity of the entire prosecution case.
90. Further, it is pointed out that there are material contradictions in the statements of prosecutrix B/PW10 and her
husband PW12-Sujan Sethi regarding the disclosure of fact of alleged rape with her and in this regard, it is pointed out that
PW10 has stated that she disclosed the fact of alleged rape to her husband after about one and half month of her marriage.
However, PW12 states that his wife disclosed this fact to him within one month of their marriage. It is also argued that both
PW10 & PW12 have admitted in their cross-examination regarding treatment received by PW12 Sujan Sethi from the hospital
of Dera Sacha Sauda at Gurusar Modia, District Ganga Nagar and this very fact further gets fortified by the testimony of
DW2 Dr. Sameer Behl who has testified that patient Sujan Sethi, resident of Fatehabad came in the hospital Param Pita
Shah Satnam Ji Hospital, Shri Gurusar Modia, Ganga Nagar (Rajasthan) and was checked by him and photocopy of
prescription slip dated 17.06.2004 has been brought on record as Ex. DW2/1, meaning thereby that prosecutrix 'B'/PW10 got
her husband treated from the hospital owned by Dera Sacha Sauda headed by the accused and no person of little self
respect would ever go to the hospital belonging to an accused had she been ravished by the accused. It is also pointed out
that marriage of prosecutrix B/PW10 has been solemnized in the premises of Dera Sacha Sauda with the blessings of the
accused and even thereafter prosecutrix B/PW10 had been visiting the Dera premises as admitted by her and all these
circumstances improbablize the prosecution case. It is also pointed out that prosecutrix B/PW10 has even signed as 'Najam'

in the marriage register during the marriage ceremony in the Dera premises and name 'Najam' has admittedly been given by
accused himself and this fact again falsify the allegation of rape by the accused.
91. It is also contended that affidavit Ex. D1 which has been duly proved by DW4 Rajinder Kumar, DW20 Banarasi Dass
Bansal, DW29 Tek Chand Sethi and DW35 Gurdial Taneja, again falsify the testimony of prosecutrix B/PW10. It is submitted
that PW10/prosecutrix B has admitted her signatures on this affidavit Ex. D1 and further the contents of the said affidavit
clearly point out that accused has never ever committed any wrong. It is also argued that a document whose genuineness
is not disputed is admissible in evidence and reliance in his regard has been placed upon Sheikhs Farid Hussain Vs. State
of Maharashtra 1983 Cr. L.J. 487 (Bombay).
92. It is also pointed out that though prosecutrix B is admittedly graduate, but she has not given any dace of alleged crime
and has never made any complaint against the accused, which in turn would strengthen the plea of the accused to the
effect that he has been falsely implicated at the behest of people inimical to the Dera and at the persuasion of CBI officials
who felt offended on account of a criminal complaint filed against them by Krishan Lal.
93. It is also argued that charge-sheet against the accused qua time and place is defective as both the prosecutrix have
alleged that they were raped at two different places, however common place of occurrence, i.e. area of Dera Sacha Sauda.
Sirsa has been mentioned qua allegations of rape upon both the prosecutrix A and B in the charges framed against the
accused and in such circumstances, accused has been prejudiced materially and has failed to cross-examine both these
prosecutrix on this aspect so as to bring out infirmities in their deposition.
94. It is also argued that there are contradictions galore in the statements of prosecution witnesses, which render the
entire prosecution case doubtful. It is pointed out that prosecutrix B claims to be alone at the gate of Gufa when she was
called inside by the accused, but prosecutrix A in her deposition has stated that four Sadhvis used to be deployed at the
gate of Gufa and such material inconsistencies in the statements of both the prosecutrix would leave no manner of doubt
that they are deposing falsely in order to implicate the accused on totally false allegations. It is also pointed out that PW6
Paramjit Singh has stated that he alongwith Joginder Singh had gone to the Dera to take back Prosecutrix A and Reetu,
while PW7 Joginder Singh states that he alongwith Ranjit Singh and Paramjit had gone to the Dera to take Prosecutrix A,
Gitu and Reetu back home. It is also pointed out that there are contradictions in the statements of prosecutrix A and
prosecutrix B regarding putting of Sadhvis at the gate of the gufa.
95. It is argued that defence witnesses are entitled to equal treatment as that of prosecution witnesses and credibility and
trustworthiness ought to be attributed to the defence witnesses at par with that of the prosecution witnesses and the
evidence tendered by defence cannot always be termed to be tainted one and that witnesses examined by the accused in
defence command the same respect as the witnesses examined by the prosecution and same rule of evidence regarding
scrutiny applies to both sets of witnesses. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the cases titled as State of Haryana
Vs. Ram Singh AIR 2002 Supreme Court 620, Malkiat Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2007 (1) RCR (Criminal) 626, Jallo @
Jille Vs. State of M.P. 2011 (2) Cri. CC 350, Kashmiri Lal & another Vs. State of Punjab 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 845.
It is argued that defence witnesses i.e. DW1 Balwinder Singh, DW15 Gurjinder Kaur, DW22 Paramjit Kaur, DW28 Sheela
Punia, DW30 Sudesh, DW31 Navninder Kaur, DW37 Dharam Singh etc. who have been residing in the Dera or closely
associated with the Dera, have duly deposed about the congenial atmosphere in the Dera and all those witnesses have
coherently deposed that Sadhvis and teachers used to treat and call the accused as Pitaji and accused treats all Sadhvis
and teachers as daughters and the atmosphere and environment of Dera Sacha Sauda is free and fair and there is no
restriction on the movements of inmates of Dera Sacha Sauda including Sadhvis, teachers, students, Sewadars and persons

from management of the Dera. It is also contended that all these witnesses are natural witnesses and have deposed about
true and existing facts, which in turn falsify the entire prosecution case.
96. It is contended that no doubt rape is heinous offence and has the effect of destroying a woman, but at the same time
a false allegation of rape can destroy the name and reputation of an accused lowering him in the eyes of his family and the
public and all these facts must also to be kept in mind while discussing evidence in a rape case. Reliance in this regard has
been placed upon Gurpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2004 (1) RCR (Criminal) 14. It is also contended that it may not be
wrong that a lady ordinarily will not put her character at stake, but it cannot be applied universally and each case has to be
determined on the touchstone of factual matrix thereof and there are number of instances where charges under sections
376 and 354 of IPC have been found to be falsely advanced. Reliance in this regard has been placed upon P.S. Bhagwat
Vs. State of Maharashtra 2005 (1) JT 91. It is also contended that the Court should not act on the solitary evidence of
prosecutrix as allegation of rape is not supported by any medical evidence or other circumstantial evidence in this case and
that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.R. Hadbe Vs. State of Maharashtra & another 2006 (10) SCC 92 has held that the
courts shall be extremely careful in accepting the sole testimony of prosecutrix when the entire case is improbable and
unlikely to happen. It is further contended that sterling witness should be of high quality and caliber whose version should
be unassailable. Reliance in this regard has been placed upon Rai Sandeep @ Deepu Vs. State of N.C.T. of Delhi 2012 (4)
RCR (Criminal) 11. It is pointed out that neither prosecutrix A/PW5 nor prosecutrix B/PW10 can be stated to be reliable
witnesses as there are various material lacunae in their testimonies. It is argued that prosecutrix B/PW10 has not even
mentioned the date and time of alleged rape committed upon her by the accused despite the fact that she is a graduate. It
is also pointed out that there is no medical evidence corroborating the testimony of both the prosecutrix and therefore mere
oral allegations against the accused would not be sufficient to bring home the guilt to the accused. It is also pointed out
that prosecutrix B/PW10 was taken back to her home from the Dera on account of the fact that her parents wanted to
marry her and this fact has been duly deposed to by DW11/Gulshan Lal and further admitted by the Investigating, Officer,
i.e. PW15 in his cross-examination, to the effect that he recorded the statement of Mulkh Raj, father of prosecutrix
B/PW10, on 13.07.2005 under section 161 of Cr.P.C. and that said Mulkh Raj in his statement dated 13.07.2005 had not
levelled any allegation of rape against the accused. It is also pointed out that PW15/I.O. has also admitted in his cross-
examination that Mulkh Raj had stated to him in his statement that he took permission from the accused to take back his
daughters by giving the reason that he wanted to marry them and these very facts clearly point out that no such alleged
incident ever happened with prosecutrix B/PW10, more-so, when her statement has not find corroboration from her own
near relatives i.e. DW11 Gulshan Lal, maternal Uncle and DW29 Tek Chand Sethi, father-in-law.
97. It is also argued that all the irreconcilable inconsistencies and omissions rendering the prosecution case unworthy of
credit must be looked into before arriving at final conclusion about guilt of the accused or otherwise. Further contended
that statement of prosecutrix cannot be accepted in every case blindly. Further contended that it is not the established
legal principle that evidence of the prosecutrix has to be accepted even if the story is improbable and belies logic. To fortify
his arguments in this regard, learned defence counsel has placed reliance upon Raja & Others Vs. State of Karnataka
2016 (4) RCR (Criminal) 581, Amit Kumar @ Vicky Vs. State of Punjab 2014 (3) RCR (Criminal) 579 Tameezudin @
Tammu Vs. State of N.C.T. Delhi 2014 (4) RCR (Criminal) 345.
98. It is also argued that the rule of res gestae makes certain statements/facts admissible under section to of the Indian
Evidence Act on account of spontaneity and immediacy of such statement/fact in relation to the fact in issue and such fact
or statement must be a par of the same transaction, meaning thereby that such statement must be simultaneous with the
incident or substantially contemporaneous i.e. made either during or immediately before or after the occurrence. That the

test for applying the rule of res gestae is that the statement should be spontaneous and should form part of same
transaction ruling out any possibility of concoction. Reliance in this regard has been placed upon case titled as Gentela
Vijayavardhan Rao & Another Vs. State of A.P. 1996 (6) Supreme Court Cases 241, Bhairon Singh Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh AIR 2009 Supreme Court 2603, Javed Alam Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Another 2010 (5) RCR
(Criminal) 16 and Krishan Kumar Malik Vs. State of Haryana 2011 (3) RCR (Criminal) 589. Accordingly, it is argued
that statement of PW12 Sujan Sethi cannot be considered as relevant under section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act. Likewise
it is also argued that statement of PW6 Paramjit Singh cannot also be considered relevant under the rule of res-gestae and
any argument of learned Special PP for CBI in this regard is misconceived one.
99. It is contended that so far as evidence of PW8 Dr. P. Paul Ramesh and PW9 Dr. Amodh Kumar Singh is concerned, the
same itself cannot be admitted as evidence in the light of law laid down in Smt. Selvi & Others Vs. State of Karnataka &
Others 2010 (2) RCR (Criminal) 896. It is also pointed out that even otherwise as per statement of PW8, polygraph
examination has been conducted on subjects Inder Sain and Krishan Lal who are neither accused nor witnesses in this case.
It is also pointed out that the reports submitted by PW8 & PW9 have got no relevance as the detail procedure of
conducting the same as well as the reasons thereof have not been submitted to the court and mere report divorced from
supporting reasons has got no value in the eyes of law.
100. Further pointed out that no legal credence can be attached to the polygraph test as the report Ex. PW9/A is merely a
photocopy. It is also argued that two daughters, namely, Amarpreet and Charanpreet, of the accused himself were residing
in the Cera hostel as admitted by both the prosecutrix and it is highly improbable that any person would commit alleged
offences inside the Dera premises where his own daughters were also residing.
101. It is also argued that allegations of threat do not find any corroboration and therefore, allegations of threatening of
prosecutrix A or B are baseless. Further pointed out that from the testimonies of either of the prosecutrix, no such
ingredient of the offence under section 506 of IPC can be said to have been established against the accused.
102. It is also argued that anonymous letter had also been enquired into by Haryana police, but all such allegations levelled
in the anonymous letter were found to be unsubstantiated and in this regard. DW34 Rai Singh, D.S.P. (Retired) has proved
enquiry report Ex. DW34/DA and this fact contradicts the entire case of the CBI.
103. It is also argued that none of the prosecutrix has ever testified that accused took off his own clothes as well during
the commission of alleged rape and this circumstance again falsify the allegations levelled by both the prosecutrix.
104. It is also argued that several statements of material witnesses including the prosecutrix have not been supplied to the
accused, thereby causing great prejudice to the accused. It is pointed out that prosecution/CBI did not even supply the
copy of statement dated 25.02.2005 of prosecutrix A recorded u/s. 161 of Cr.P.C. and the same was supplied when defence
counsel had pointed out non-supply of such statement at the stage of arguments on the point of charge and the counsel
representing the CBI at that time even made statement that no such statement dated 25.02.2005 was ever recorded by
the investigating agency, however, later on prosecution conceded and copy of statement had to be supplied to the
accused and this circumstance makes apparent biased attitude of the investigating agency against the accused.
105. It is also argued that if the behaviour of the witness is unnatural and grossly against normal human conduct then the
same itself is strong circumstance in doubting the story projected by such witness and best check on the veracity of a
witness is the test of normal human behaviour. Accordingly, it is argued that conduct of prosecutrix A in residing in the Dera
for more than one year after the alleged occurrence goes against normal human conduct. Likewise, it is argued that

conduct of prosecutrix B in solemnizing her marriage in the Dera premises, signing the marriage register in the name of
'Najam', a name given by the accused, taking her husband for treatment to the hospital of Dera Sacha Sauda at Gurusar
Modia etc., would all be against normal human conduct as no women of self respect would ever do such acts after
commission of rape upon her.
106. It is also submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that a dispassionate assessment of the
evidence must be made and the court must not be swayed by the horror of the crime or the character of the accused and
that the judgment must not be clouded by the facts of the case. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed
upon case titled as Rathinam @ Rathinan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu 2011 (5) RCR (Criminal) 3.
107. It is also contended that if the evidence of witnesses is found to be in conflict and in contradiction with other
evidence or with the statement already recorded, then in such a case it cannot be held that prosecution has proved its
case beyond reasonable doubt. The omission which in effect amounts to contradiction in material particulars and goes to
the root of the case, renders the evidence unreliable. In case the witness in his statement u/s. 161 of Cr.P.C. has not
disclosed certain facts but meets the prosecution case first time before the court, then such version lacks credence and is
liable to be discarded. Reliance in this regard has been placed upon Sunil Kumar Shambhu Dayal Gupta & Others Vs.
State of Maharashtra 2010 (13) SCC 657. It is also contended that presumption of innocence of an accused is a human
right.
108. It is also contended that failure of the defence to prove the defence version cannot be ground of conviction and it is
the prosecution which has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
109. It is also submitted that any improvement made upon statement recorded u/s. 161 of Cr.P.C. is to be discarded and
the accused cannot be held guilty on such an improved version. It is also submitted that non-examination of independent
witness would seriously impair the credibility of the prosecution case. It is also contended that if two views are possible on
the evidence produced in the case i.e. one indicating the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, then the
view favourable to the accused is to he accented. It is also submitted that in case of rape, the testimony of prosecutrix
should be appreciated on principle of probabilities and the accused is entitled to benefit of every reasonable doubt. To
fortify his submissions, reference has been made to case titled as Sunil Kumar Sambudayal Gupta Vs. State of
Maharashtra 2010 (13) Supreme Court Cases 657, Harijana Thirupala & Others Vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court
of A.P. Hyderabad 2002 (6) Supreme Court Cases 470, Narender Kumar Vs. State NCT of Delhi 2012 (7) Supreme
Court Cases 171 and State of Rajasthan Vs. Rajendra Singh 2008 (11) Supreme Court Cases 106. Finally prayer has
been made to acquit the accused.
Findings of Court
110. Having due regard to facts and evidence or the case and rival contentions, following points arise for consideration and
adjudication in the instant case:-
1. Whether the prosecution has produced cogent and reliable evidence to establish that the accused facing the trial
has committed rape upon prosecutrix 'A' and 'B' at the stated times and places, besides criminally intimidating both
the prosecutrix/victims?
2. Whether defence has been able to improbablize the prosecution case by adducing cogent evidence or from the
evidence brought on record?

3. Conclusion.
111. The case set up by the prosecution is that accused Baba Gurmeet Singh @ Maharaj Gurmeet Singh @ Gurmeet Ram
Rahim Singh, Chief of Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa, Haryana raped prosecutrix A forcibly in August 1999 in the Gufa situated in
the area of Dera Sacha Saudha, Sirsa and thereafter in 2000 and also criminally intimidated of dire consequences to her life
and further accused also raped prosecutrix-B forcibly in the Gufa situated in the area of Dera Sacha Saudha, Sirsa in
September 1999 and also threatened her of dire consequences, if she told anything about the rape to anybody and thus the
accused has committed offences punishable under Sections 376, 506 IPC. As noticed here-in-above, vide order dated
06.09.2008 Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh has been charge-sheeted under Section 376 IPC for committing rape upon
prosecutrix A in the gufa situated in the area of Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa on 28/29 August 1999 at about 8:00 pm and for
committing offence under Section 506 IPC for criminally intimidating prosecutrix-A with dire consequences and threat to life
while committing rape upon her Further, accused Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh has also been charge-sheeted for the
offence punishable under Senior, 376 IPC for committing rape upon prosecutrix-B in the gufa situated in the area of Dera
Sacha Sauda, Sirsa in the month of September 1999 at about 10:00 pm forcibly and further charge-sheeted also under
Section 506 IPC for criminally intimidating prosecutrix-B with dire consequences and threat to life while committing rape
upon her.
112. In order to bring home charge to the accused, prosecution/CBI has examined prosecutrix-A as PW5. Prosecutrix-A/PW5
has deposed that her brother Ranjit Singh used to visit Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa and her parents also used to visit Dera
very often and in the year 1992-93 there was Satsang at Pipli of Baba Gurmeet Singh and they had gone to attend the
Satsang. Further stated that she used to see her brother Ranjit Singh going to Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa since her childhood
and Baba Gurmeet Singh used to be accompanied by 10-12 Sadhvis and has other followers and after the Satsang, Baba
Gurmeet Singh along with Sadhvis and his followers had stayed at their house during night and in the morning when Baba
Gurmeet Singh was about to leave, then he asked them to visit Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa and thereafter she started visiting
Dera and observed that there were some more Sadhvis in the Dera and she was impressed by them and it came to her mind
that she should also reside in the Dera as Sadhvi. She has further deposed that her brother Ranjit Singh was having two
daughters, namely, Ritu and Geetu at that time and they were studying in the school at the Dera. She further stated that in
the month of July, 1999, she stalled living at the Dera as Sadhvi. That previously, she had been going to the old Dera and
the new Dera was under construction and when she decided to become a Sadhvi, by that time new Dera was functional and
there were 50-55 Sadhvis who were living in the Ashram in the new Dera and Gurmeet Singh used to appoint the Incharge
of the said Ashram and that at that time, one Sudesh was the Incharge of the Ashram. Further deposed that there was
Gufa in the new Dera in which Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh used to live and there was separate kitchen for Sadhvis and
food for the Baba was separately served. Further stated that it was the duty of some Sadhvis to cook food for Baba
Gurmeet Singh and they used to place the prepared food at the door of the Gufa and from there some Sadhvis used to take
food from that place in the Gufa. That there were two entry points for going to the Gufa and one entry point was meant for
gents and the other entry point was for ladies/Sadhvis inside the Ashram. Further stated that the other Sadhvis used to ask
her as to whether Baba/Pitaji had granted pardon (Mafi) to her or not, but at that time she did not understand the meaning
of word Mafi and other Sadhvis used to laugh at her whenever she asked the meaning of Mafi from them. Further stated
that she had seen the Sadhvis going inside the Gufa many times. Further deposed that on 28/29.8.1999, Sudesh Incharge
of Ashram called her and told her that she had been called by Pitaji inside the Gufa and on hearing this, she was happy to
know that she had been called by Pitaji. Thereafter, at about 8.00/8.30 p.m., Sudesh Kumari took her to the Gufa and left
her thereafter ringing the bell and Sudesh Kumari asked her to go up-stairs in the Gufa after ringing the bell and she rang

the bell, upon which Gurmeet Singh opened the door. Further stated that she wished him by saying "Dhan Dhan Satguru
Tera Hi Aasra" and he asked her to sit and closed the door. Further deposed that when she tried to sit on the carpet, then
he asked her to sit beside him on the bed and initially, she hesitated to sit on the bed, but later on she sat on the bed at
some distance upon his insistence. Further stated that he asked her as to whether she was comfortable in the Dera and
thereafter he showed her some letters addressed to her at the address of Dora. Further stated that at that time, she did
not know who had written those letters. Thereafter, Gurmeet Singh asked her to narrate if she had committed any mistake
in her past life, then she told him that in her college days, she knew one boy and that boy must be trying to defame her.
Thereafter, he told her that she had become a Sadhvi and now he has control over her body and mind and further told her
that she had become "Apavitr" (impure) and by this act, he will purify her. Thereafter, he tried to kiss her and she resisted,
but he started manhandling her because she was physically very weak in comparison to him and thereafter, accused forcibly
committed rape upon her without her consent. Further stated that thereafter she complained to him that she had been
treating him as God and then he told her that God Krishna also used to do like this. Further stated that she wore her clothes
and tried to come outside the Gufa weepingly and accused stopped her and threatened that if she disclosed this incident to
anyone, then it would not be good for her. She has also stated that one day when she was on duty at night she saw one
Sadhvi, namely, Sapna going inside the Gufa, when said Sapna returned from the Gufa after 30-45 minutes then she was
weeping inconsolably and some other Sadhvis followed Sapna upto her room. That when she asked from those Sadhvis as to
why Sapna was weeping, then they did not tell her anything. She has also stated that one sister, namely, Rajni of Sapna,
also used to reside there and in the morning, before teaching, whenever they had some time then they used to attend the
Satsang of Baba Gurmeet Singh. That she saw Sapna sitting along-with her sister Rajni and parents and she was weeping at
that time and that she went to her and asked her as to why she was weeping so much, upon which she told her to leave
the Dera as soon as possible and further said that Baba Gurmeet Singh was a Darinda in guise of God. Further stated that
for one year everything was going smoothly and after one year of above said previous incident, Parbandhak called her and
told that she had been called by Baba/Pitaji in the Gufa and she became frightened and apprehended that the same incident
may not be repeated with her in the Gufa and she refused to go mere. Further stated that she (Parbandhak) threatened her
that in case she will not go there, her Langar would he slopped, and upon her insistence, she went there and Gurmeet Singh
was standing at the door of the Gufa and accused started rebuking her and when she went inside he locked the room and
when she said that she would raise voice, then accused told her that inside voice cannot be heard from outside. Further
stated that she told the accused that she will disclose everything to her brother Ranjit Singh and accused replied that
Ranjit Singh would not listen to her and would not believe her story because he was having blind faith in him and thereafter
accused again raped her forcibly and against her will, Further stated that prior to committing rape, accused had said that
Ranjit Singh cannot dare to question him and he will get him shoot and will also get him buried. Further stated that accused
also told that even a bird cannot move without his permission in the Dera and he was having good links with high-ups and
that she returned back from the Gufa while weeping. Further she has also deposed that after 5-6 months of second incident
of rape, she was called by the Warden in the day time and she told her that she had been called by Pitaji, That though she
was frightened but since it was a day time, therefore, she went in Gufa and Gurmeet Singh was already standing there on
the stairs and when she asked him as to why he had called her then he started rebuking her and told her that how could
she dare to question while standing down stairs and despite all her resistance, he dragged her and took her inside the room
and there he threatened her saying that now she had courage to speak against him and further told that if she dared to
speak anything against him men the result would not be good for her and her family. She stated that he was having links
with high-ups and ministers and she did not understand this fact by now. He further told that if she continued to do like this
then her whole family would be burnt alive and thereafter she returned from there weepingly. She has further deposed that

although she was very much scared still she told above incident to her brother Ranjit Singh and after hearing this he was
stunned for some time and advised her not to disclose this fact to their parents and they would feel it too much. Further
deposed that her brother stated that he had been worshiping him (accused) like a God for the last so many years and it
would have been better for him if he had worshiped a stone. Further stated that at that time the final exams of her niece
Reetu were near, so her brother said that after her exams, he will take them to their home from the Dera and in April, 2001,
after completion of exams of Reetu, immediately next day, his brother Ranjit Singh brought all of them back from the Dera.
She has also deposed that prior to that many other Sadhvis including Rajnish. Parminder had already left the Hera and
before leaving Dera Rajnish had asked her to leave the Dera as soon as possible otherwise the accused would squeeze her
like a lemon and she further stated that she would take some action against the accused after leaving the Dera. Further
stated that after returning from Dera, one day her brother Ranjit Singh told her that some anonymous letter was being
circulated, which was also pointing one line towards them due to which Krishan Lal, Indersain, Avtar Singh, Babu Lal (a)
Purshottam were pressurising him to come to Dera and beg pardon from Baba Gurmeet Singh. She has further deposed that
she was married on 04.10.2001 and after her marriage, her brother Ranjit Singh came to her on 01.07.2002 and told her that
Dera people, namely, Krishan Lal, Inder Sain, Babu Lal, Avtar Singh etc. were harassing him very much and had been giving
threatening calls to him and they had given threats to him that they would eliminate his children and parents by burning and
further told that he had asked the aforesaid persons not to harass him otherwise he would disclose to everyone as to what
had happened to his sister in the Dera and thereafter her brother Ranjit Singh was killed by the Dera people on 10.07.2002.
Further stated that after the arrest of Krishan Lal and Avtar Singh, who had been absconding she gathered courage and
disclosed about the incidents to her husband who extended moral support to her and her parents also gave support to her.
She has also stated that on 19.03.2007 her statement was got recorded at Chandigarh by some Judicial Officer in his
chamber and said statement was signed by her. The witness has proved her statement as EX. PW5/A. She has also stated
that she identify signature of Inder Sain at point-X on site plan Mark-A.
113. Further, another prosecutrix i.e. prosecutrix B has been examined as PW10 who has deposed that her father Mulkh Raj
was a follower of Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa since the time of her grand-father and she often used to accompany her father
to Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa and developed the tendency to serve the Dera and also to become a Sadhvi. She has further
stated that in June, 1998 she became a Sadhvi and started residing at the Dera premises and at that time. Baba Gurmeet
Ram Rahim Singh was the head of the Dera. She also identified accused Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh who was present
through video conferencing. She has further stated that she used to reside at the Girls' hostel of the Dera and Baba
Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh had renamed her as 'NAZAM'. Further stated that she used to teach at the school from 8.00 a.m.
to 2.30 p.m. and used to take tuitions of children who were weak in studies from 3.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. and thereafter.
Sadhvis used to perform duty as guard at the door from Girls' hostel to Gufa from 8.00 p.m. to 12.00 in the night and from
12.00 in the night till 4.00 p.m. She has also clarified that by 'gufa' she meant the place where Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim
Singh used to reside. She further deposed that in September, 1999, she was deputed on duty as guard from 8.00 p.m. to
12.00 in the night outside the gate of Gufa and at around 10.00 p.m., Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh came out of the Gufa
and called her inside and she was alone on duty at that time. Further stated that she went inside the Gufa as she used to
respect him a lot and treat him like a God and she thought that he must have some work to allot to her. Further deposed
that Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh was sitting on the bed in the Gufa and he asked her to sit on the bed, she hesitatingly
tried to sit on the floor as she respected him a lot, however, Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh asked her to sit along him and
accordingly, she sat on the bed alongside him. Then Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh started asking her about herself and
the Dera and inquired horn her whether she was feeling at home at the Dera or not and also inquired her about other
Sadhvis and she replied that they were nice. Further deposed that Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh tried to touch her,

however, she restrained him from touching her and then he forcibly embraced her and kissed her forehead and then forcibly
he made her lie on the bed and took off her clothes. Further he was physically very powerful and forcibly raped her and she
started weeping. Further stated that when she started putting on her clothes, Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh threatened
her and stated not to disclose this incident to anyone and in case she would disclose this fact to anyone, it will not be good
for her. Further stated that after the incident, she left the hostel and on seeing her weeping many girls gathered there and
she did not disclose any fact to them. Further stated that in the next morning, her parents came to the Dora to attend the
Majlis and she met her parents and told them about the incident and after taking permission from Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim
Singh, her parents took her to the home in the evening. She has further stated that her parents did not report the matter
to the law enforcing agencies as Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh had threatened her and he was having clout with high ups
such as politicians. Further stated that she had got married to Sujan Sethi in May, 2000. That the parents of her husband
were also followers of Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa and after marriage, her husband suspected her virginity and after long time,
she disclosed to her husband that Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim had raped her once. She has further stated that when the
investigation of this case was going on, they started getting phone calls stating that these phone calls were from the Dera
and she should not appear before the CBI officer and make any statement regarding the incident. That even when the
challan was presented, they used to get phone calls stating that she should resile from her statement made before
Investigating Officer and lot of pressure was exerted upon her on account of which she and her husband had to leave the
house of her in-laws. Further stated that her in-laws (parents of her husband) are still staunch followers of Dera Sacha
Sauda and once her husband was also taken to Dera Sacha Sauda and they were asked to resile from their statements and
was also asked that they would have to sign affidavits for the same. It has also been stated by this witness that her
father-in-law had got a telephonic call from the Dera and he had taken herself and her husband to the Dera where they
were made to sit in the Suchkhand Hall and there Baba came on a car and he stalled staring at thorn and stated that they
should continue to visit the Dera and then he left. Further stated that one Mohan Singh met them there, who is also a
Sadhu in the Dera and he told them that the papers were not yet ready and after getting the papers prepared from the
lawyers, they will be called again and her father-in-law replied that he will send them i.e. herself and her husband, as and
when they are summoned to the Dera. Further stated that on the next day, her father-in-law started getting telephonic
calls from the Dera stating that the papers were ready and that they should come and sign the same, however they
(prosecutrix and her husband) refused to sign the papers and they left the house of her father-in-law and started residing
at the house of her parents. She has also deposed that the incident of rape stated above had taken place in the premises
of old Dera. She has also deposed that they had informed CBI officers that they were being pressurized by the Dera people
to resile from the statement and that they had left the house of her in-laws and at this CBI officers and provided them
security.
114. Before evaluating the above statements of the prosecutrix on the touchstone of truthfulness and credibility, it is worth
necessary to discuss briefly the guiding principle of law regarding evaluation of evidence in a criminal trial, especially in a
trial involving charge of rape. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh, 1996 (2) SCC 384 has
held that if evidence of prosecutrix inspires confidence it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of her
statement in material particulars. Evidence of a girl or a woman who complains of a rape or sexual molestation be not
viewed with doubt, disbelief or suspicion. Evidence of victim of sexual assault stands almost at par, with a evidence of an
injured witness and to an extent even more reliable. Just as a witness, who has sustained some injuries in the occurrence,
which is not found to be self-inflected, is considered to be good witness in the sense that he is least likely to shield the
reed culprit, evidence of victim of sexual offence is entitled to great weight. It has further been held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court that the court must, while evaluating evidence, remain alive to the fact that in case of rape, no self

respecting woman would come forward in a court just to make humiliating statement against her honour such as is involved
in the commission of rape upon her. Further it has been observed that rape is not merely a physical assault it is often
destruction of the whole personality of the victim. A murderer destroys the physical body of a victim, but a rapist degrades
the very sole of helpless female and court should deal with such cases with utmost sensitivity. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Chandra Prakash Kewal Chand Jain, 1990 (1) SCC 550 has also held that evidence
of prosecutrix should ordinarily be accepted without corroboration in material particulars except rarest or rare cases and to
insist on corroboration is to insult womanhood. Direct evidence is very rarely available in sexual offences and the court must
realized that, ordinarily a woman, will not stake her reputation by leveling a false charge concerning her chastity. It has
further been held that the court is entitled to base conviction on evidence of prosecutrix unless the same is shown to be
infirm and not trustworthy and prosecutrix has strong motive to falsely involve the accused. If the totality of the
circumstances appearing on the record of the case disclosed that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely
involve the person charged, the court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence, Further, in Bharwada
Bhagin Bhai Hirji Bhai Vs. State of Gujarat, 1983 (3) SCC 217, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that eyewitness
account in sexual offences cannot be expected and corroboration is not sine qua non for conviction of accused in rape case
and when a charge of rape is brought by a woman girl then there is inbuilt assurance that charge is genuine. Still further,
the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Om Parkash Vs. State of Haryana, 1999 (1) RCR (Criminal) 265, while
relying upon Gurmeet Singh (supra) case, has summed up the law enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by holding that
the testimony of victim in cases of sexual offences is vital and unless there are compelling reasons, which necessitate
looking for corroboration of her statement, the court should find no difficulty to act on the testimony of a victim of sexual
assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. It has further been
held that corroboration as condition for judicial reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix is not a requirement of law but
a guidance of prudence under given circumstances. I: must not be overlooked that a woman or a girl subjected to sexual
assault is not an accomplice to the crime, but is a victim of another person's lust and it is inappropriate and undesirable to
lest her evidence with a certain amount of suspicion, treating her as if she were an accomplice. Inferences have to be
drawn from a given set of facts and circumstances with realistic diversity and not dead uniformity lest list that type of
rigidity in the shape of rule of law is introduced through a new form of testimonial tyranny making justice a causality. Courts
cannot cling to a fossil formula and insist upon corroboration even if, taken as a whole, the case spoken of by the victim of
sex crime strike the judicial mind as probable. That court could base conviction on uncorroborated testimony of prosecutrix
if it inspires confidence, 'statement of prosecutrix has to be appreciated and assessed like that of an injured witness, delay
in reporting the matter in rape cases can be due to variety of reasons particularly the reluctance of prosecutrix or her family
members to go to police and honour of her family. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satpal Singh Vs. State of
Haryana 2010 (8) SCC 714 has held that consent is different from submission and a women is said to give consent only if
she has freely agreed to submit herself, while in free and unconstrained possession of her physical and moral power to act in
a manner she wanted and an act of helplessness on the face of inevitable compulsion is not consent in law. Further, it has
been held that in rape case the prosecutrix remains worried about her future and she remains in traumatic state of mind and
the family of the victim generally shows reluctance to go to the police station because of society's attitude towards such a
woman and as it casts doubt and shame upon her, rather than comfort and sympathize with her. Family remains concerned
about its honour and reputation of the prosecutrix and after only having cool thought it is possible for the family to lodge a
complaint in sexual offences. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Prem Singh, 2009 (1)
SCC 420 has held that delay in lodging the FIR in sexual assault cases cannot be equated with case involving other
offences because several factors weigh in the mind of the prosecutrix and her family before lodging complaint or reporting

the matter to the police.
115. As per the depositions of prosecutrix A and Prosecutrix B, they were called by accused Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh
in the month of August 1999 and September 1999 respectively in the Gufa (place of residence of the accused) situated in
the area of Dera Sacha Saudha, Sirsa. Both the prosecutrix, i.e. prosecutrix-A and prosecutrix-B have given vivid
description of criminal acts of the accused at the time of committing rape upon them. Undisputedly, both prosecutrix i.e.
prosecutrix-A and prosecutrix-B, were residing in the premises of Dera Sacha Saudha, Sirsa at the relevant time and the
defence has not disputed this fact in any manner. Rather it has come on record in the testimony of defence witnesses that
both the prosecutrix were residing at the Dera premises at the relevant time.
116. Prosecutrix A joined the dera in July 1999 as Sadhvi and prior to that she had been going to the Dera as her brother,
namely, Ranjit Singh was staunch follower of the Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa. Prosecutrix A has deposed that on 28/29-08-
1999 she was called by accused who is called as Pitaji by his followers, inside the Gufa (place of residence of accused) and
the accused forcibly committed rape upon her without her consent, by saying that he will purify her by this act and he also
threatened her that if she disclosed this incident to anyone then the same would not be good for her. She has also deposed
that accused had also Stated to her that her brother Ranjit Singh would not listen to her and would not believe her story as
he (Ranjit Singh) was having blind faith in him and also said that Ranjit Singh cannot dare to question him and that he
(accused) will get him (Ranjit Singh) shoot and buried and even a bird cannot move without his permission in the dera and
that he was having links with high-ups. Prosecutrix 'A' has also deposed that Sadhvis used to be put on duties at the gate
of the Gufa as guard and she was also put on duty as guard on that gate many a time. It is also stated by her that she had
seen one Sadhvi, namely, Sapna going inside the Gufa when she was on duty at night and when said Sapna returned from
the gufa after 30-45 minutes then she was weeping inconsolably. She has also deposed that she saw Sapna sitting along-
with her sister Rajni and her parents in the Majlish was and she (Sapna) weeping at that time and on her asking, site told
her to leave the Dera as soon as possible and also said that Baba Gurmeet Singh was a Darinda in the guise of God. She has
also deposed that she was very much scared, but she told about the incident of rape to her brother Ranjit Singh and after
hearing this he was stunned for some tune and advised her not to disclose this fact to their parents as they would feel it
too much. That at that time final exams of her niece Reetu were near and her brother said that he will take them to their
home from the Dera after the exams and immediately next day, after completion of exams of Reetu in April 2001, her brother
Ranjit Singh brought all of them from the Dera. She further states that she was married on 04.10.2001 and after her
marriage, her brother Ranjit Singh told her that Dera people were harassing him very much and were giving threads to him to
eliminate their family by burning and her brother Ranjit Singh was killed on 10.07.2002. Further states that after arrest of
Krishan Lal and Avtar Singh, she gathered courage and disclosed about the incidents to her husband who extended moral
support to her. From the above facts narrated by the prosecutrix-A, there remains, in the considered opinion of this court,
no manner of doubt that prosecutrix-A was ravished by accused Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh when she was staying in
the Dera premises on 28/29-08.1999.
117. Likewise, another prosecutrix i.e. prosecutrix-B/PW10 has also narrated the incident of rape committed upon her by the
accused in the Dera premises against in September 1999 her will. Prosecutrix-B has narrated that in September 1999 she
was deputed on duty as guard from 8:00 pm to 12 in the night outside the gate of Gufa and at about 10:00 pm, accused
Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh came out of the Gufa and called her inside and he tried to touch her and she restrained him
from touching and then accused forcibly made her lie on the bed and took off her clothes and forcibly raped her as he was
physically very powerful and accused asked her not to disclose this incident to anyone and threatened her in case she
disclosed this fact to anyone and she came out weepingly and on seeing her weeping, many girls gathered there but she did

not disclose any fact to them.
118. It is not in dispute that families of prosecutrix-A and prosecutrix-B were followers of Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa, From
the perusal of testimonies of both the prosecutrix, it is clearly apparent on record that the prosecutrix and their families had
been under tremendous pressure and threats, which were direct as well as indirect and the ultimate beneficiaries of the
same was none but the accused person facing trial. The evidence on record also clearly reflects that the kind of pressure
which was being exerted on the prosecutrix and their families, goes to show that all was not well and this very fact explains
the delay on the part of the prosecutrix to come forward to make statement before the investigating agency in the course
of investigation conducted by it/CBI on the directions of the Hon'ble High Court.
119. As per the deposition of the prosecutrix-A, she had disclosed the incident of rape committed by accused upon her to
her brother Ranjit Singh, however unfortunately said Ranjit Singh was no more in this world (as he was allegedly murdered
on 10.07.2002) before the registration of FIR in this matter on 12.12.2002. Prosecution has also examined PW6-Paramjit
Singh, who is husband of elder sister of prosecutrix-A. This witness has testified that prosecutrix-A started residing in the
dera complex in the year 1999 and daughters namely, Reetu and Geetu of Ranjit Singh were students of Dera institutes. He
has also deposed that Ranjit Singh was a member of ten members committee constituted by the Dera to over see its
working and he died on 10.07.2002 as he was shot dead in his fields. He has also testified that in April 2001 he along-with
Joginder Singh, father of Ranjit Singh had gone to the Dera to bring prosecutrix A and Reetu from the Dera and they had
met Baba Gurmeet Singh to seek his permission to take prosecutrix-A with them. He has also testified that he inquired from
Ranjit Singh for his growing disaffection towards Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa and said Ranjit Singh had replied that the Dera
was not being run by truly religious people and that there had been cases of sexual exploitation at the Dera and that it was
not Sacha Sauda but Jootha Sauda and that he had wasted his 25 years of life there. He has also stated that Ranjit Singh
had stated that prosecutrix-A had told him that there was sexual exploitation in the Dera and on his inquiry from Ranjit
Singh as to how prosecutrix-A had came to know about the incident of sexual exploitation at the Dera then he informed
that prosecutrix-A had informed him that she herself was a victim of sexual exploitation at the Dera and that he did not
want that the future of Ritu should be spotted as has happened in the case of prosecutrix-A. Further prosecution has also
examined father of prosecutrix-A as PW7 who has also testified regarding association of Ranjit Singh with Dora Sacha
Saudha, Sirsa and further testified that in the year 1999 prosecutrix-A had joined Heard quarter of Dera Sacha Saudha,
Sirsa so that she may pursue her studies for post-graduation and further stated that after stay at Dera for 11/2 years,
prosecutrix-A had started complaining that she was feeling sick at the Dera. He has also deposed that daughters namely,
Ritu and Gitu of Ranjit Singh were students at the school of the Dera for 4-5 years and that in May 2001 he along-with
Paramjit and Ranjit Singh had brought back prosecutrix-A, Ritu and Gitu from the Dera to their village. He has also deposed
that the Warden informed them that only Gurmeet Singh was competent to give the permission to take back the girls and in
the evening he along-with others visited the Gufa in the old complex to meet Gurmeet Singh and requested Gurmeet Singh
that prosecutrix-A did not want to stay at the Dera any more and she be allowed to leave the Dera and Gurmeet Singh
granted the permission. He has also deposed that at that time one Mohan Singh was also present and he advised
prosecutrix-A not to make anything public about the inside activities of the Dera. He has also deposed that when Ranjit
Singh had told him that in no eventuality the girls should be allowed to stay back at the Dera, then he enquired Ranjit Singh
as to why he was insisting that the girls should not be allowed to stay at the Dera and Ranjit Singh replied that Sadhvis
were being sexually exploited at the Dera and on account of that he did not want the girls to stay there. He has also
testified that in the year 2000, the frequency of visits of Ranjit Singh to the Dera had decreased considerably and he
seldom used to visit the Dera and on his inquiry, Ranjit Singh had replied that illegal activities were being carried out in the
Dera and he did not feel like visiting the Dera and felt that he had wasted last 20 years in performing austerities. He has

also stated that in May 2002 he had gone through a news item in newspaper about an anonymous letter staling that
Crumpet Ram Rahim Singh was indulging in sexual exploitation of the girls in the Dera and that he had talked with Ranjit
Singh about the letter, upon which Ranjit Singh had replied that the contents of the letter were correct. Further deposed
that Ranjit also stated to him and his wife in case anyone from Dera inquires from them about the letter, they should reply
that they were not involved at all in the circulation of this anonymous letter and also told that otherwise Baba's staunch
disciples would reduce their house to ashes. He has also deposed that after the murder of Ranjit Singh, his daughter
prosecutrix-A told him that illegal activities were going on in the Dera and that she herself had been subjected to sexual
exploitation at the Dera by Gurmeet Singh.
120. Even though PW6 and PW7 cannot be stated to be witnesses of occurrence in any manner, however these witnesses
have spoken about the various circumstances which lend sufficient corroboration to the statement of prosecutrix-A
regarding many aspects.
From the tenor of testimony of PW-5/prosecutrix-A, PW6 and PW7 it is writ large on record that prosecutrix-A as well as her
family was under tremendous fear of reprisal at the hands of Dera followers in case they spoke anything about the activities
of the Dera and this very fact explains the reluctance on the part of the prosecutrix A and her family members for not
reporting the matter to the police.
121. Further, so far as prosecutrix-B is concerned she has also described in detail the occurrence i.e. committal of rape
upon her by the accused in the gufa situated in the Dera premises. Prosecutrix-B has deposed that accused Baba Gurmeet
Ram Rahim Singh forcibly raped her inside the gufa and also threatened her of dire consequences if she ever disclosed this
fact to anyone. She has also deposed that after the incident she left for the hostel and many girls gathered there on seeing
her weeping, but she did not disclose anything to them. It is also stated by this witness that in the next morning, her
parents came to the Dera to attend the Majlis and she met her parents and told them about the incident and then her
parents took her to home in the evening after taking permission from Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh. She has also stated
that she and her parents did not report the matter to the law enforcing agencies as Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh had
threatened her and he was having clout with high-ups such as politicians. She has also stated that she got married to
Sujan Sethi in May 2000 and after marriage her husband suspected her virginity and after some time she had disclosed to
her husband that Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh had raped her once. She has also stated that parents of her husband
were also follower of Dera Sacha Saudha, Sirsa. She has also deposed about the threatening calls from the Dera restraining
her from appearing before the CBI officer during the course of investigation and also about getting phone calls for resiling
from her statement after filing of the challan and on account of pressure she and her husband had to leave the house of her
in-laws. She has also described the circumstances forcing her and her husband to go to the Dera after her marriage.
122. Prosecution has also examined husband, namely, Sujan Sethi, of prosecutrix-B as PW12 who has deposed about his
family circumstances as well as about the threats extended to him and his wife by Dera people. PW12 has deposed that he
got married with prosecutrix-B on 28.05.2000 and on the day of first night of their marriage, he got suspicious about
virginity of his wife and he inquired from his wife about his doubt and she explained many reasons. Further deposed that his
heart was pricked and he remained under doubt and on his repeated asking, one day his wife narrated the story to him and
he was stunned after hearing the fact disclosed to him by his wife as his wife told him that when she was Sadhvi in the
Dera, she was called by the accused inside the Gufa and raped her and threatened her of dire consequences. He has also
stated that his wife also told that she kept on weeping on that night and on the next morning when her parents came in the
Dera she narrated whole episode to them and her parents took her hack after taking permission from the accused. That his

wife also narrated that her parents knew this fact that the accused is influential and powerful person and if any action is
taken by them, then he will get their family eliminated and likewise he was also aware of this fact that if any action is taken
by him, then accused will get his family eliminated and his apprehension came true regarding the power of the accused
when followers of the Dera ransacked the office of the publisher of Daily Newspaper who published the news regarding the
anonymous letter which contained the facts about the sexual exploitation of the Sadhvis of the Dera by the accused. He
has also deposed that he resisted the wishes of her parents joining his sister Usha as Sadhvi in the Dera and his father had
not accepted his request as he was a staunch follower of the Dera. He has also deposed that when his parents did not
agree with his request, then he narrated the whole story of commission of rape upon his wife (prosecutrix-B) in the Dera by
the act used. Further stated that his parents being superstitious, they started torturing him and his wife and when CBI
officers were coming to their house during investigation of the case, then his parents instructed them not to open the
mouth before the CBI officers. He has also stated that one clay Mr. Khajuria Inspector of the CBI came to their house, he
and his wife narrated the whole incident which took place regarding the rape upon his wife in the Dera by the accused. He
has also stated that he did not initiate any action against the accused whenever they started to initiate any action, they
had received telephonic call from the Dera and that his father was called by the accused through the followers of the Dera
and was being threatened there not to open month before the CBI. He has also deposed regarding receiving of threatening
calls for pressurizing them to resile from their statements in the court. He has also deposed about receiving of telephone call
from one Gobi Ram, follower of the Dera and asking his father to bring him in the Dera as their names were arrayed in the list
of witnesses after filing of the challan in the court and that his father took him in the Dera on the next day where Gobi Ram
and Mohan Singh were present, who directed him to change his statement as well as his wife's statement before the
Magistrate and Gobi Ram further asked them to bring family including his wife in the Dera to meet the accused and
thereafter the whole family went to Dera Sacha Saudha to meet the accused. He has further deposed that on 03.08.2007
his hither took him and his wife again in the Dera for signing the affidavit and when they were sitting in the Suchkhand Hall
then accused came in the vehicle and stared at them and accused asked them to visit the Dera regularly. He has also
deposed that Mohan Singh told them that papers were no; complete on that day and told that he will call them again
whenever the papers are ready and thereafter next day, a call was received from Gobi Ram to ask about the name of his
grand-father and after about two hours again a phone call was received asking that he along-with his wife to reach in the
Dera with photographs and then next morning his brother had also come from Singapore and he and his wife were
pressurized by the family members, being the followers of the Dera to got to the Dera. Further deposed that he and his wife
resisted this pressure, which led to disturbance in the family and immediately thereafter, he and his wife left the house and
went to his in-laws at Sirsa and they also informed the CBI regarding the pressure exerted on them by the followers of the
Dera and by their family members to change their statements.
123. A closer scrutiny of statement of PW12 would clearly reveal that the statement of PW12 has largely corroborated the
statement of prosecutrix-B regarding the disclosing of the incident of rape by her to him after some time of their marriage as
well as the pressure being exerted on them by the Dera people to resile from their statements. No doubt, statement of
PW12 regarding disclosing of the factum of incident of rape by prosecutrix-B to him may not come under the principle of res
gestae under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act due to lapse of time, nevertheless it is a circumstance which make the
statement of prosecutrix-B truthful and reliable in as much as that she and her family could not gather courage to report
the incident to the police for such a long time and this circumstance coupled with the circumstances reflecting receiving of
threatening calls by prosecutrix-B and her husband from the Dera people, would clearly make out the helplessness of a
victim and her family for not reporting the matter to the law enforcement agencies.
124. Learned defence counsel has said much stress that huge delay in recording of statements of alleged victims, thereby

making the entire prosecution case shrouded in doubts and that none of the prosecutrix or anybody else ever lodged any
complaint regarding the alleged occurrence and that the case against the accused has merely been set up on the basis of
an anonymous letter whose author has not been ascertained to till date by the investigating agency. So far as the aspect
regarding delay in reporting the matter or making the statement before the CBI/investigating agency is concerned, it is well
settled that mere delay is not fatal as the same is a matter of appreciation of evidence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Ramdas and others Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2007 (2) SCC 170 has held that the court must consider the delay in the
background of facts and circumstances of each case. Different cases have different facts and it is a matter of appreciation
of evidence by the court of fact and it is the totality of evidence that is important and no straight jacket formula can be
evolved in such matter. Still further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Sanjay Kumar @
Sunny, Criminal Appeal No. 1231 of 2016 decided on 15.12.2016, while dealing with a case of rape wherein it was
argued that it was a case of inordinate delay where reporting to the police was three years after the incident has concurred
with the findings of the trial court regarding conviction of the accused therein by observing that the reluctance on the part
of the prosecutrix in not narrating the incident to anybody for a period of three years and not sharing the same event with
her mother, is clearly understandable. Now coming to the facts of the instant case, present case is a case of peculiar facts
and circumstances. The genesis of registration and investigation of the instant case by the CBI lies in an anonymous
letter/complaint (Mark-A/Ex. PW15/3) received in the Hon'ble High Court somewhere in May 2002. Vide the aforesaid
letter/complaint, allegations regarding sexual exploitation of Sadhvis in the Dera Sacha Saudha, Sirsa, by Baba Gurmeet Ram
Rahim Singh, Chief of the Dera, were levelled and it was also alleged in the said letter that Sadhvis/victims were being
sexually exploited by extending threats of dire consequences to them. In pursuant to the receipt of said letter/complaint,
the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court directed learned District and Sessions Judge, Sirsa to conduct inquiry in the
matter and accordingly the report Ex. PW11/C, stating therein that nobody in the Dera was prepared to disclose about the
sexual abuse of girls in Dera Sacha Saudha, Sirsa and there was no access to the hostel of Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa where
Sadhvis/girls were residing, without permission of Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh or the Dera authority. Further the report
of learned District and Session Judge, Sirsa also stated that however the possibility of such acts could not altogether ho
ruled out and truth can only be ascertained if the matter is secretly got investigated through central agency. It is in this
background that the Hon'ble High Court treated the above-said letter/complain as Criminal Misc. No. 26994-M of 2002 titled
'Court of its motion Vs. The State of Haryana' and passed an order dated 24.09.2002/Ex. PW11/B, thereby directing the CBI
to take up the matter for investigation. Resultantly, the instant FIR Ex. PW11/A was registered in Special Crime Branch, CBI,
Chandigarh. Since present case FIR has been registered on she directions passed by the Hon'ble High Court on an
anonymous letter, therefore no victim was available with the CBI at the initial stage and the only clue which was available
with the CBI to approach/identify the victims was to peep inside the contents of the anonymous letter. It would be very
pertinent to mention here that there was reference in the above-said letter that one Sadhvi belonging to Kurukshetra
district, who was one of the victims, had returned to her house from the Dera and her brother, who was staunch follower of
Dera Sacha Sauda, Sira, had severed ties with the Dera, after getting disillusioned. There was also reference in the said
letter regarding threats being extended to the victims of sexual exploitation, who had left the Dera and disclosed misdeeds
of Chief of Dera Sacha Saudha, Sirsa. As per statement of PW15/Satish Dagar/IO, Dera Manager was asked to provide lists
of Sadhvis residing in Shah Satnam Ji Girls Hostel Sirsa, Sadhvis residing in the Ashram of Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa and the
Sadhvis who had left Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa and accordingly, investigation of the case progressed after receipt of such
list Ex. PW15/11. It has also been mentioned in the challan that only 20 Sadhvis out of 24 Sadhvis, who had left the Dera
during the period 1997-2002, could be traced out and most of them were found married and settled in life and for the sake
of reputation of their families they initially declined to come out with the truth due to fear. It has also transpired in the

investigation that two victims gathered courage and came out to unravel the misdeeds of the Dera Chief. As has already
been noticed, both prosecutrix i.e. prosecutrix-A and prosecutrix-B had been threatened of dire consequences in case they
revealed illegal acts of the accused to anyone. Prosecutrix-A has duly deposed that after about one year of the incident of
rape upon her on 28/29.08.1999, she had disclosed the same to her brother Ranjit Singh who asked her not to disclose the
same to their parents as they would feel it too much and also told her that he would take her back home after final exams
of his daughter Reetu and thereafter she was taken back on the very next day after final examination of Reetu in April,
2001. It has also come on record that prosecutrix-B reported the matter to her parents on the very next day of the
commission of rape upon her by the accused and she was taken back to her home by her parents.
However, she and her parents kept mum and did not report the matter to the law enforcement agencies as Baba Gurmeet
Ram Rahim Singh had threatened her and accused was having clout with high-ups such as politicians, Prosecutrix-A/PW5,
prosecutrix-B/PW10 and PW12/Sujan Sethi have all deposed in detailed regarding the threats extended to them and the
tremendous pressure exerted on them for not disclosing the real facts to anyone and also prosecutrix-B and PW 12 have
also stated regarding pressure exerted upon them for resiling from their statements and the circumstances explained by the
victims as well as other prosecution witnesses explain fear psychosis which operated in the minds of victims and it was
under this circumstances that none of the victims could come forward to report the matter. Even otherwise, it is natural for
an unmarried girl to initially conceal the incident of the rape for fear of social ostracism, what to talk of fear of reprisal at
the hands of Chief of the Dera. At this stage, it would not out of context to mention here that at extra ordinary situations
demand extra ordinary remedies and while dealing with an unprecedented case, the court has to bear in mind the peculiar
facts obtaining in a given case. Needless to mention that courage is mother of all our virtues and a person with courage can
always sustain his/her dignity. But, some times situations are created by powerful protagonists which instill fear in the mind
of a victim and that fear has the potential of denting the sense of dignity. At the cost of repetition both prosecutrix were
under tremendous and constant fear of reprisal at the hands of the accused and could not gather courage to report the
matter to the police. However, prosecutrix A, as she has deposed, gathered courage after some of the people associated
with Dera were arrested, meaning thereby that when she felt that state machinery could take action even against the Dera
people, then only she gathered courage and disclosed about the incident to her husband who extended moral support to
her. It is also a matter of record that prosecutrix A made statement dated 19.03.2007 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the
then learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh and she has duly stated about the illegal acts of the accused in her
statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Learned defence counsel has vehemently argued that prosecutrix-A was
initially examined by the investigating agency and her initial statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded on
25.02.2005 wherein she has not levelled any categoric allegation of rape upon her by the accused and thus her further
statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as well as statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. are an improved
version, thereby rendering her testimony unreliable and untruthful. No doubt statement of prosecutrix A has been recorded
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 25.02.2005 and there is no categoric allegation of rape upon her by the accused in the said
statement nevertheless a bare perusal of her statement dated 25.02.2005 would reveal that she has stated that Dera
people are very dangerous and they can get her and her family eliminated and that she wanted to forget her life spent in
the Dera as well as the incidents which took place in the Dera and these contents of her statement recorded under Section
161 Cr.P.C. on 25.02.2005 clearly reflected her tearfulness and also indicate about the incidents of her life spent in the
Dera. Not only this, defence has also asked prosecutrix-A in her cross-examination about the English translation of word
'Galat Kaam' and she has replied that by the word 'Galat Kaam' she meant rape. It is worthwhile to mention that prosecutrix-
A has stated in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that accused Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh committed
'Galat Kaam' with her and it was in this context that prosecutrix-A has replied the answer of defence counsel, thereby

making it crystal clear that she was ravished by the accused in the Dera premises and as such it cannot be held that there
had been any improvement in the version of the prosecutrix-A in any manner. It is common knowledge that any female
residing in hinterland still refrain from using exact word like 'Balatkar, 'rape', rather they normally use the word 'Galat Kaam'
for the same.
125. Both the prosecutrix i.e. prosecutrix-A and prosecutrix-B have stood like rocks and credibility of these witnesses
victims could not be impeached despite very lengthy cross-examination and they have consistently deposed that they were
ravished by the accused while residing in the Dera premises. The reluctance of prosecutrix in not reporting the matter to
the police can also be appreciated in the light of the fact that they were christened as Sadhvis by the accused and treated
the accused like God as deposed to by both the prosecutrix and therefore the incident of rape upon them by the accused
was no less than horrific shock. Moreover any believer, moreso a person christened as Sadhvis by the Chief of the
Dera/accused, would be the last person in the world to level false allegations against such revered personality and therefore
testimony of both prosecutrix i.e. prosecutrix-A and prosecutrix-B inspires full confidence and found to be truthful and
credible. There is not an iota of evidence on record to impute any motive, much loss strong motive, for any alleged false
implication as pleaded by the accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
126. Learned defence counsel has vehemently argued that there had been faulty and biased investigation in this case which
renders the entire prosecution case doubtful. It is pointed out that various material witnesses have not been examined in
order to bring out real truth in the matter, At the cost of repetition, instant case involves allegations of sexual exploitation
of Sadhvi by surfaced Head of Dera Sacha Saudha, Sirsa and the misdeeds of Dera Chief, in an anonymous letter received,
inter alia, in the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana and the Hon'ble High Court directed the CBI to investigate into
the allegations made in the anonymous letter and accordingly investigating agency/CBI proceeded further in accordance
with law so as to investigate the matter in compliance of the directions passed by the Hon'ble High Court. It is common
knowledge that offence of rape is not committed in open, rather the offender invariably commits such acts behind closed
doors in order to avoid detection. The accused is religious Head of Dera Sacha Saudha, Sirsa as per his own admission in his
examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and followers/believers of any such religious Head cannot easily be associated in the
investigation of allegation against the Head/Chief himself. Even otherwise, such followers would never believe or listen to
anything against their religious head and can easily be won over, even if examined during the course of investigation. Some
of the witnesses have been given up by the prosecution as having won over and there is no rule of thumb that an adverse
inference is necessarily to be drawn if some of the witnesses are given up by the prosecution as being won over. It is trite
to say that prosecution is master of its own case, it is sole discretion of the prosecution to examine or not to examine any
particular witness and if the prosecution think that its case has been cogently established by examination of the witnesses
so far examined, then it can validly give up other witnesses as being unnecessary and therefore argument of leaned defence
counsel in this regard is without any substances and lacks merit.
127. If the prosecution case is found to be established beyond shadow of reasonable doubt as per the evidence coming on
record, then any faulty investigation on the part of investigating agency looses its significance and has no bearing on the
merits of the case. Learned defence counsel has also sought to argue that authorship of anonymous letter has not been
established till date and the very basis of prosecution case has remained unsubstantiated. With due deference, this court
finds no merit in such argument as non-establishment of authorship of an anonymous letter does not create any dent in the
consistent, reliable and truthful testimonies of both the prosecutrix ravished by the accused dining their stay in the Dora
premises. As already noticed, investigating agency proceeded to investigate into the allegations against the accused by
peeping into the contents of the anonymous letter and two of the victims came forward and gathered courage to unravel

the truth behind the allegations levelled in the anonymous letter. So far as arguments regarding non-recovery of revolver,
bed, blue film etc as mentioned in the anonymous letter is concerned, the same again does not create any dent in the
prosecution case. The occurrence took place in the month of August, 1999 and September 1999 and the anonymous letter
surfaced somewhere in May, 2002 and thereafter matter was handed over to the CBI and FIR was registered in this case on
12.12.2002 and then investigating agency tried to locate the victims, if any, as per the contents of the anonymous letter
and in such circumstances it is highly improbable that such items, could have been recovered by the investigating agency
after so long. Moreover, non-recovery of such items as mentioned in the anonymous letter, does not shake the testimony of
either of the prosecutrix in any manner whatsoever.
128. Learned defence counsel has also sought to argue that statements of victims and other persons examined by the
investigating agency have not been supplied to the accused, thereby causing great prejudice to the accused. It is also
specifically pointed out that Mr. K.L. Raina, the then Dy. SP has partly investigated the matter and has recorded
statements of victims, but neither the statements of victims recorded by this part IO were supplied to the accused nor this
witness was examined by the prosecution and said K.L. Raina was examined as Court Witness in pursuance to the directions
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Again this court finds no merit in the arguments of learned defence counsel. No
doubt, K.L. Raina, the then Dy. SP has been examined as court witness i.e. CW-1 in pursuance to the directions passed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, nevertheless this witness in his cross-examination has duly stated that prosecutrix A had told to
him that everything was not right in the Dera and that some other girls/Sadhvis had also disclosed that everything was not
right in the Dera, which in a way lends credence to the prosecution case. At the cost of repetition, prosecutrix-A/PW5 as
well as prosecutrix-B/PW10 have duly deposed regarding the circumstances as well as the fear psychosis in their minds and
in such circumstances non disclosure of acts of accused by the prosecutrix to this witness, who remained investigating
officer for a short span during the initial stage, is understandable and the same does not, in any way, impeach the
credibility of either of the two prosecutrix. Needless to mention here that during the course of examination of this witness
i.e. CW-1 K.L. Raina, defence counsel had moved an application for directing the CBI/prosecution to place on record and
provide the copy of statements of PW5/prosecutrix-A and PW10/prosecutrix-B recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the
then investigating officer K.L. Raina in the year 2003 and said application of the accused was dismissed by this court
vide order dated 18.10.2016 and the order passed by this court has been upheld upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
accordingly it comes out that the matter has been agitated upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court unsuccessfully and now it does
not lie in the mouth of the accused to contend that any alleged prejudice has been caused to him in this regard. Further, so
far as non-supply of statements of some other witnesses examined during the course of investigation, is concerned, the
same has also been conclusively decided by the then Presiding Officer vide order dated 12.12.2007 by recording that
complete copies of all the relied upon documents have been supplied to the accused and again raking up of this issue at this
stage is nothing but misleading and misconceived one. Time and again, trial court has passed orders to the effect that all
the relied upon documents on the part of the prosecution have been duly supplied to the accused and any challenge to
such orders on behalf of the accused has remained unsuccessful upto the Hon'ble Apex Court and in such circumstances,
question of any prejudice to the accused does not arise at all Learned defence counsel has also sought to argue dun during
the course of hearing on the point of charge, it was pointed out by learned defence counsel on 01.12.2007 to the effect
that a copy of statement dated 25.02.2005 of witness/prosecutrix-A has not been supplied and learned counsel
representing the prosecution/CBI had made a statement that no such statement dated 25.02.2005 prosecutrix-A was
recouped by the investigating officer and later on prosecution conceded the submission of learned defence counsel and
copy of statement dated 25.02.2005 recorded by the investigating agency under Section 1.61 Cr.P.C. was supplied on the
next day of hearing on 12.01.2008 and accordingly argued that there has been deliberate concealment on the part of the

prosecution to the disadvantage of the accused. With due deference, this court again finds this argument quite
misconceived and misleading, in as much as the copy of statement dated 25.02.2005 of prosecutrix-A recorded under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. had been duly supplied to the accused before framing of charges against the accused and moreover
there is a categoric mention in the challan filed by the investigating agency in Para-16.4 (IX) to the effect that prosecutrix-
A was examined on 25.09.2005, meaning thereby that there bad been no deliberate or intentional concealment on the part
of the investigating agency and all the relied upon documents have duly been supplied to the accused. It is also worthwhile
mentioning here that CW-1 K.L. Raina, in his cross-examination by learned SPP for the CBI, has stated that during his
investigation, prosecutrix-A had disclosed to him the reason of leaving the Dera was that everything was not right in the
Dera and further volunteered that prosecutrix-A had also disclosed to him that daughter of her brother had also been
withdrawn from the Dera, Learned defence counsel has also sought to argue that as per the testimony of CW1/K.L. Raina,
one Inspector Sat Narain met the girls i.e. prosecutrix-A and prosecutrix-B and that the girls had told to inspector Sat
Narayan whatever was told to him, meaning thereby that inspector Sat Narain had also examined the victims/girls and again
statements of these girls recorded by Inspector Sat Narain have not been supplied to the accused. Again the argument
raised by learned defence counsel is frivolous and without any substance as defence counsel moved an application seeking
direction to the CBI/prosecution to place on record and provide copies of statements of prosecutrix-A and prosecutrix-B
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by Inspector Sat Narain and said application has been dismissed by this court vide order
dated 09.12.2016, thereby holding that the application has been filed on conjunctures and surmises as prosecution/CBI in
its reply has categorically stated that Inspector Sat Narain had not recorded the statement of prosecutrix-A and
prosecutrix-B under Section 161. Cr.P.C. Even otherwise, reliance placed by learned defence counsel on the deposition of
CW1 K.L. Raina to contend that Inspector Sat Narain recorded statement of prosecutrix-A and prosecutrix-B tinder Section
161 Cr.P.C. is misconceived as CW-1 K.L. Raina has simply deposed that as per his knowledge, one Inspector Sat Narain met
the girls, namely, prosecutrix-A and prosecutrix-B, which does not mean that Inspector Sat Narain had recorded any
statement of either of these two prosecutrix.
129. It is also argued that several defence witnesses, namely, DW1/Balwinder Singh, DW11/Gulshan Lal, DW15/Gurjinder
Singh, DW22/Paramjit Kaur, DW25/Krishan Pal and DW28/Sheela Punia, who have been residing in the dera premises or
closely associated with the Dera activities, have duly deposed regarding the congenial atmosphere in the Dera Sacha
Sauda, Sirsa and further pointed out that testimony of all these witnesses categorically make out that accused Baba
Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh treats all Sadhvis and teachers as daughters and since defence witnesses are entitled to equal
treatment is that of prosecution witness and trustworthiness ought to be attributed to the defence at par with that of the
prosecution witnesses, therefore falsity of the allegations against the accused is apparent on record. With due deference,
this court is of the considered opinion that there cannot be no doubt about ratio of law to the effect that defence
witnesses are entitled to equal treatment as that of the prosecution witnesses. However, it is also settled legal proposition
that each case has got its own bundle of facts and evidence in a particular case is to be appreciated in a passionate
manner and entirely of the evidence is to be looked into to arrive at logical conclusion. In the instant case, Baba Gurmeet
Ram Rahim Singh is facing charges of committing rape upon two prosecutrix in the Dera premises as well as threatening both
the prosecutrix of dire consequences. No rape is committed in open space and offender invariably commits such acts behind
closed doors and thus given the nature of the case, any evidence of defence witnesses regarding congenial atmosphere in
the Dera cannot be held to shatter an otherwise truthful and reliable testimony of both the prosecutrix. This court can also
take judicial notice of the fact that various studies reveal that in a majority of cases of sexual assault, the perpetrator has
been found to be close acquaintance/relative/friend and therefore any statement of defence witnesses regarding congenial
atmosphere in the premises of Dera Sacha Saudha, Sirsa would be of no significance as no head of an institution or a Dera

would ever openly indulge in acts of sexual assault moreso head or a religious institution and all such depreciable acts are
normally committed in close secrecy. Even otherwise, no direct evidence except the evidence of prosecutrix/victims is
seldom available in an offence of rape and therefore testimony of prosecutrix/victims cannot simply be discarded merely on
the ground that some inmates of an Institution or a Dera have deposed that atmosphere in such institution/Dera was quite
congenial.
130. Learned defence counsel has also made a very strange argument by making submission that none of the prosecutrix
has ever testified that the accused took off his own clothes as well during the commission of alleged rape and accordingly
argued that allegations levelled by both the prosecutrix are false. As already noticed, both the prosecutrix, i.e. prosecutrix-
A and prosecutrix-B, have described in detail events leading to their ravishment by the accused in the Dera premises and
the accused has committed rape upon them in the Gufa which is stated to be place of residence of the accused. Both the
prosecutrix have made vivid description of the crime committed upon them by the accused and in such circumstances,
argument on the part of learned defence counsel that prosecutrix have not testified that accused took oft his own clothes
during the commission of crime, is totally absurd and does not warrant much discussion.
131. Learned defence counsel has argued that no medical examination of the victims was ever got conducted and therefore
in the absence of medical examination, statement of either of the prosecutrix is totally unreliable. As already noticed, this
case involves peculiar facts and circumstances and the same are to be evaluated accordingly. As per the statements of
both the prosecutrix, i.e. prosecutrix-A and prosecutrix-B, they were ravished by the accused when they were residing in
the Dera premises and thereafter both the prosecutrix admittedly left the Dera and got married in October 2001 and May
2000 respectively. At tin? cost of repetition, allegations regarding sexual exploitation of Sadhvis by the accused in his Dera
surfaced by way of an anonymous letter complaint and the same was entrusted to the CBI for investigation. It is a matter
of record that FIR in this case was registered on 12.12.2002 and thereafter investigating agency started its investigation
and located the victims and thus undisputedly investigation agency approached both the prosecutrix/victims, after they had
already been got married and in such circumstances, medical examination of the victims could have been of no
consequence. Even otherwise, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.C. Deva @ Dyava Vs. State of Karnataka, 2007 (12) SCC
122, had held that even though the report of gynecologist pertaining to medical examination of prosecutrix did not disclose
any evidence of sexual intercourse, yet testimony of the prosecutrix which is found to be cogent, reliable, convincing and
trust-worthy, has to be accepted. Thus, in the light of law-laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the afore-stated
case, it can safely be stated that if the evidence of prosecutrix is found to be trustworthy and credible, then lack of
medical examination, moreso in the facts and circumstances discussed here-in-above, cannot be held to be ground to throw
away prosecution case. Learned defence counsel has also argued that accused has never been medically examined to
ascertain his capacity to perform sexual intercourse and since accused has taken a specific plea in his examination u/s. 313
of Cr.P.C. to the effect that since 1990 he is not medically and physically fit to do sex with any one and that he is not
potent and in such circumstances, it was bounden duty of investigating agency to ascertain virility of the accused. With all
due deference, this argument of learned defence counsel is again devoid of any substance. As per the case of defence
itself, two daughters, namely, Amarpreet and Charanpreet of the accused were residing in the Dera hostel., as has come
out in the testimony of prosecutrix-A and B in response to cross-examination conducted by defence counsel, meaning
thereby that two daughters, at least, have born out of loin of the accused. Further DW28/Sheela Punia in her cross-
examination has also stated that accused has two daughters, namely, Charanpreet and Amarpreet who were students of
Shah Satnam Ji Girls School, Sirsa. Further stared that in the year 1998 Amarpreet was admitted in 5th class and
Charanpreet was admitted in 8th class in the year 1998, again stated in the year 1996 and 1998. This very fact speaks
volumes about the virility of the accused. Even otherwise, accused has set up a plea regarding his impotency since 1990 in

his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and this plea of the accused remains totally unsubstantiated and it was incumbent
upon the accused to adduce evidence, even though on the touchstone of preponderance of probability, that he was not
capable of performing sexual act from 1990 onward. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramnaresh and others Vs. State of
Chhattisgarh, (2012) 4 SCC 257 has hold that where the accused takes benefit of opportunity to explain the
circumstance appearing against him as well as to put forward his defence at the time of recording his statement under
Section 313 Cr.P.C., then his statement under this section so far as it supports the case of the prosecution can be used
against him for rendering conviction. Even otherwise, the defence of the accused in his examination under Section 313
Cr.P.C. has been of total denial of the prosecution case set up against him and be has pleaded that he has been falsely
implicated and drug mafia, anti religious people, political persons and other Dera institutions are against him. However, there
is not an iota of evidence on record to that effect. Simply putting suggestions to the prosecution witnesses, without there
being any admission on the past of such witnesses and without there being any trace of evidence coming on record, would
not advance plea of an accused taken in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Keeping in view the proposition of law
as well as the facts, circumstances and evidence of the present case, it can safely be staled that in reply to questions put
to the accused tinder Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused gave simple denial of the incriminating evidence appearing against
him, without there being an iota of evidence in support of his picas and therefore an adverse inference may also he drawn
against the accused in such circumstances.
132. Next, learned counsel for accused has argued that there are material discrepancies in the statements of prosecution
witnesses, which render the prosecution case doubtful. However, on appraisal of Statements of prosecution witnesses, the
alleged discrepancies are not so material which could be held to have shaken the foundation of the prosecution case and all
these variances can be termed as minor discrepancies. In fact, such type of minor discrepancies are bound to appear in the
statements of the prosecution witnesses who are deposing before the court after a substantial period of time and moreover,
the power of retention and reproduction differs from person to person and the prosecution witnesses are not expected to
narrate a "parrot like" version in the court, rather such type of minor discrepancies are the hallmark of truthfulness of
statements of the prosecution witnesses and accordingly no fault can be found regarding the authenticity of the
prosecution version on account of such discrepancies.
133. Learned defence counsel has argued that there has been totally faulty and tainted investigation in this case as
investigating agency has not examined material witnesses in order to bring the truth in the matter. Again this court finds no
force in the argument of learned defence counsel because it is settled legal proposition that benefit shall not accrue to the
accused on account of faulty or tainted investigation of the investigating agency. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of
Punjab Vs. Gurmeet Singh (supra), case has held that even it investigating officer did not conduct the investigation
properly or was negligent then that cannot become a ground to discredit the testimony of prosecutrix as the prosecutrix
has no control of the investigating agency and negligence of investigating officer could not affect the credibility of the
statement of prosecutrix. Both the prosecutrix have made statements to the investigating agency and while deposing in the
court, both the prosecutrix have stood by their statements made to the investigating agency. Not only this, statement Ex.
PW5/A of prosecutrix-Awas also got recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and there is no deviation or improvement in the
statement of prosecutrix-A while deposing in the court and in such circumstances, any argument regarding faulty and
tainted investigation cannot be picked up by the defence to shatter the prosecution case.
134. Much stress has also been laid on the fact that both the prosecutrix kept mum for long and this aspect itself creates
doubt in the statements of these prosecutrix. Needless to mention that statements of both the prosecutrix are to be
evaluated in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. There is no denial on the part of the defence regarding the

fact that parents/brother/families of both the prosecutrix were staunch followers of the Dera and had full faith in Dera Chief
i.e. accused. As per the testimony of prosecutrix-A, accused had told to her at the time of commission of rape that her
brother Ranjit Singh would not listen to her and would not believe her story as he (Ranjit Singh) was having blind faith in
him, meaning thereby that the accused was so assured that family members of the victims would not believe their (victims)
versions. Even otherwise, both the prosecutrix had come to the Dera premises to lead their life as Sadhvis by reposing full
faith in the Dera Chief/accused and revered him like God, so it is but natural that such followers would get traumatic
experience of their lifetime on getting ravished in breach of such faith and in such circumstances, silence of the prosecutrix
can well be understood. Still further, in normal course of human conduct, an unmarried girl (as both the prosecutrix were
admittedly major and unmarried at the time of occurrence) would never give publicity to the traumatic experience she had
undergone and certainly would feel terribly embarrassed in relation to incident to narrate it to her near and dear ones, over-
powered by feeling of shame and natural inclination of such a victim would be to avoid talking about it for fear of maligning,
the honour of her/their entire family. All the aforesaid discussed circumstances of this case duly explain the reluctance of
both the prosecutrix to approach the law enforcement agencies and therefore statements of these prosecutrix cannot be
discarded on the ground of silence alone. It may not be out of context here to mention that statements of both the
prosecutrix are replete with sense of fear psychosis gripping their minds and the Dera people creating circumstances to
instill utmost fear in the minds of the victims and therefore it is not at all abnormal conduct on the part of brother of
prosecutrix-A and parents of prosecutrix-B for not approaching the law enforcement agencies and family members of both
the prosecutrix resigned to the fate and preferred to keep mum inspite of coming out in open against the accused. It may
also be mentioned here that accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. himself admits that Ranjit Singh was
follower of Dera Sacha Saudha, Sirsa and was related to Dera Sacha Saudha for 20-22 years before his death.
135. Similarly, argument, has also been raised on behalf of the defence to the effect that there has been delay on the part
of investigating agency in examining the victims/witnesses despite coming to know about their names in this regard. Specific
reference has been made to cross-examination of PW15/Satish Dagar, investigating Officer, wherein the IO has stated that
ex-Sadhvi Rajnish in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 05.07.2005 recorded by him had suspected that
prosecutrix-B might have written the anonymous letter, but the statement of prosecutrix-B under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has
been recorded on 04.05.2006. Again this court finds no worth in this argument of learned defence counsel. Any delay in
examining a witness under Section 163 Cr.P.C. will not prejudice the prosecution case. Reliance in this regard can be placed
upon Yogesh Singh Vs. Mahabir Singh 2016 (4) RCR (Criminal) 753.
136. Further, it is also argued on the part of defence to the effect that conduct of prosecutrix-A in residing in the Dera for
more than one year after the alleged occurrence goes against normal human conduct and further conduct of prosecutrix-B
in solemnizing her marriage in Dera premises and thereafter visiting the Dera and getting treated her husband in Dera
hospital would be against normal human conduct, thereby creating dent in the story of both the prosecutrix. Once it has
come on record that families of both the prosecutrix were followers of the Dera, so in such circumstances it cannot be
stated abnormal human conduct on the part of prosecutrix A to reside in the Dera for more than one year after the
occurrence. Moreover, prosecutrix-B/PW10 and PW12/her husband have consistently stated that parents of husband of
prosecutrix B were staunch dera followers and had insisted to get their marriage solemnized in the Dera premises and they
had further insisted to visit the Dera premises on receiving telephonic call from the Dera people and forced them to visit the
Dera hospital at Sri Gurusar Modia District Sri Ganga Nagar, Rajasthan to get treated PW12. Sometimes small and
insignificant events facts furnish indication to the larger design, In the instant case, accused has examined DW2 Dr. Sameer
Bahl who has deposed regarding the fact that Dr. Sujan Sethi (PW12) resident of Fatehabad came to Parampita Shah

Satnam Singh Ji General Hospital. Sri Gurusar Modia District Sri Ganga Nagar, Rajasthan, in June 2004 and this witness has
brought on record photocopy of prescription slip as Ex. DW2/1. It is common knowledge that no hospital generally retains
photocopy of prescription slip of any patient and retaining photocopy of this patient in the said hospital indicates certain
design, as the anonymous letter leveling allegations of sexual exploitation against the accused had surfaced somewhere in
May, 2002 and prescription slip pertains to June 2004. Had a carbon copy of the prescription slip been retained by an
institution, the same could have been seen as normal circumstance, but retaining photocopy of prescription slip certainly
indicates something else than meets the eye. Even otherwise, both prosecutrix 'B' and PW12/Sujan Sethi have categorically
stated that brother and father of PW12 Sujan Sethi pressurized them to go to the Dera and that they resisted these
pressures leading to disturbance in the family and thereafter they (PW12 and PW10) left the house and went to his (PW12)
in-laws house at Sirsa and all these circumstances duly explain the conduct of prosecutrix-B as well as PW12 and such
conduct cannot be termed as abnormal human conduct. Rather circumstances were created to make both these persons
act in a manner thereby trying to reflect their conduct as going against normal human conduct.
137. It is also argued that prosecution has to prow its case beyond reasonable doubt and defence has only to produce
evidence improbablizing the prosecution case on the touch stone of preponderance of probabilities and the prosecution has
failed to discharge initial burden cast upon it, as the presumption of innocence of the accused is fundamental principle of
law. It has also been argued that prosecution cannot take support from the weakness of the case of defence. There can be
no doubt about the settled principles of law as argued by learned defence counsel. However, it is also well settled that the
criminal trial is not like a fairy tale wherein one is free to give fright to one's imagination and fantasy. The court has to judge
the evidence by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic worth and the animus of the witnesses. The court is concerned
with the question as to whether she accused arraigned at the trial is guilty of the crime with which he was charged. Crime
is an event in real life and is the product of interplay of different human emotions. Every case in the final analysis would
have to depend upon its own facts. Although the benefit of every reasonable doubt should be given to the accused, the
court should not, at the same time, reject evidence which is ex-facie trust-worthy, on grounds which are fanciful or in the
nature of conjectures. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon case titled as State of Punjab Vs. Jagir Singh and
others 1973 (3) SCC 277.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court has invariably also held that it is a matter of common experience that in cases relating to rape
and unnatural offences, the eyewitness are seldom available and the testimony of the victim/prosecutrix as fortified by
other attending circumstances and other available evidence is to be looked into for assurance to the acceptability of the
testimony short of its corroboration It may be observed here that both the prosecutrix have categorically made statements
regarding sexual assault by the accused and have made revelations which find corroboration from the statement of defence
witnesses themselves e.g. about Gufa (the place of residence of accused), when did they join and left the Dera., material
aspects regarding affairs of the Dera etc. etc. and no material contradiction or inconsistency has been brought forth from
the evidence, as to the material aspects of the case. Both the prosecutrix have also categorically deposed that they were
threatened of dire consequences if they ever opened their mouth and fear of reprisal was writ large in their minds and it is a
case where the very lives of the victims and their families were at stake and the fear to their lives coupled with worries
about the future of victims and concerns about the honour of the family and reputation of victims must have played
deterrent and factor in the minds of victims as well as their family members in not reporting the matter. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court has, more often, has taken, judicial notice of the fact ordinarily the family of the victim would not intend to
get a stigma attached to the victim and delay in reporting or even non-reporting sexual offences is a normal phenomenon.
Reference in this regard if needed can be made case titled Satpal Singh Vs. State of Haryana (2010) 8 SCC 714.

138. It is also vehemently argued that prosecutrix-A/PW5 and her family members have given a false statement against the
accused in order to save Paramjit Singh in LIC policy case and therefore she cannot be termed as reliable witness.
Reference has also been made to statements of PW6/Paramjit Singh and PW7/Joginder Singh, to contend that
relative/family members of prosecutrix-A unnecessarily thought that FIR in the LIC case was registered on account of
influence of the accused and the Dera people and there was motive on the part of this prosecutrix to falsely implicate the
accused. After giving thoughtful consideration to the entire evidence on record, this court finds no force in the said
argument. Even though, some case was got registered against PW6/Paramjit Singh regarding LIC policy, but PW6/Paramjit
Singh has categorically denied that he was not aware as to whether the CBI had recommended the cancellation of CBI case
on 25.02.2005 or on 27.07.2005. It is also a matter of record that as per testimony of PW15/Satish Dagar, IO, it has come
on record that RC No. 9 of 2003 was registered by the CBI on the orders of Hon'ble High Court to investigate the matter
regarding LIC policy and the same was investigated by the CBI. It has further come on record that closure report was filed
in the said case RC No. 9 by the CBI and the same was accepted by the Court. As per the own suggestion given by the
defence to this witness, the cancellation of FIR in RC No. 9 was moved by the CBI on 25.04.2005, nevertheless
PW6/Paramjit Singh had already been examined by the CBI on 25.02.2005. There is no evidence worth credence on record
to the effect that investigating agency/CBI had any motive to falsely implicate the accused by conniving with some ordinary
people. Even otherwise, it is next to impossible that members of her family, being staunch followers of the Dera, would ever
connive with premier investigating agency in falsely implicating an innocent person. Rather it is common knowledge that
followers of any sect or religion take strong sides with their own sect/Dera and cannot be made to stand against their own
Dera/religion. It is also argued that prosecutrix-A/PW5 had written a letter Mark-DC/Ex. DW22/1 in her own hand-writing
which reflects that she was treated by the accused as her daughter and that she treated the accused as her father, which
in turn falsify the entire allegations of prosecutrix-A in this regard, it is argued that defence has examined DW22/Parmjit
Kaur who has deposed that letter Mark-DC/Ex. DW22/1 is in the hand-writing of prosecutrix-A and bear her signature and
further DW28/Sheela Punia has also deposed that she had seen prosecutrix-A writing and signing in due course of business
in their school and she has also duly identified hand-writing of prosecutrix-A as well as her signature and accordingly the
contents of said letter reflect that nothing wrong happened with prosecutrix-A in the Dera. First of all, it is worth
mentioning that prosecutrix-A/PW5 in her cross-examination has categorically denied her writing and signature on letter
Mark-DC. It is also worth mentioning here that specimen hand-writing/signatures of prosecutrix-A were obtained during the
course of the trial on the application of the accused and the same were sent to CFSL for comparison with disputed hand-
writing/signatures on letter Mark-DC. However, vide CFSL report no definite finding has come on record regarding hand-
writing/signatures of prosecutrix-A on the letter Mark-DC and in such circumstances no legal credence can be attached to
this document and the entire argument in this regard becomes superfluous. Even otherwise, letter Marked-DC has been put
to prosecutrix-A in her cross-examination on 09.05.2009 and this letter has never seen light of the day for about seven
years since registration of the case, which in turn renders such as document shrouded in mystery.
139. It is argued that prosecutrix-B has falsely implicated the accused in conspiracy with some elements who are anti Dera
Sacha Saudha, Sirsa and has given false statement to implicate the accused. However, there is not an iota of evidence on
record to suggest, even remotely, that prosecutrix-B had any motive to falsely implicate the accused. No element of any
enmity has come on record and there could be no reason for this prosecutrix to implicate the accused falsely. Prosecutrix-B
has spelt out the accounts of events that had taken place during her stay at the Dera and defence has failed to elicit
anything in its favour despite subjecting this witness to nuisance of lengthy cross-examination and intricacies of court
proceedings. It requires no extra sense to appreciate the evidence of a victim who has been sexually exploited, especially
by an accused who had no apparent dearth power of plef and large following. Any statement of rape is an extremely

humiliating experience for a woman and until she is a victim of sex crime she would not blame anyone but the real culprit.
Nothing has come on record to a conclude that the evidence of the victims is actuated with any malafide or malice and that
the statements of victims are a result of any conspiracy as pleaded by the accused. Any follower, much less the Sadhvis,
who had been christened by the accused himself, would be the last person in the world to level false allegations against
such a person.
140. Much stress has been put on the affidavit Ex. D1 staled to be executed by prosecutrix-B. No doubt prosecutrix B has
truthfully admitted her signature on this document i.e. affidavit Ex. D1. Nevertheless this witness has explained the
circumstances under which her signatures were obtained by her sister-in-law, namely, Saroj (Sister of her husband.
Prosecutrix-B/PW10 has explained that the affidavit was got signed from her by her sister-in-law Saroj at Hissar by stating
that Parbandhaks of the Dera had come and they had asked her to get this document signed from her and further Saroj had
told her that Dera Parbandhaks were asking for her address at Hissar, however she (Saroj) had told that there was no need
for them to go Hissar and she will get it signed from her and further stated that Saroj has also told that her she (Saroj) had
purchased the stamp paper herself in her name and further told that in case she wanted that life of Sujan (her husband) is
not put to risk then she should sign it and had also told her not to disclose this fact to Sujan. This witness has further
stated in her cross-examination that she had not stated before the CBI officer that she had signed an affidavit at the
insistence of Saroj and that she had disclosed to the CBI whatever was asked from her. Learned defence counsel has
sought to argue that the explanation furnished by prosecutrix-B has not been recorded in her statement recorded under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. and thus the same is apparently false explanation. No doubt this fact does not find mention in the
station of prosecutrix-B recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. however, this witness has duly explained that she had disclosed
to the CBI whatever was asked from her. Even otherwise. Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement is an unsigned document so far as
witness is concerned and it is discretion of the IO to reduce the portion which he selects. Still further, affidavit Ex. D1 is
dated 04.10.2002 and it would not be insignificant to mention here that investigation into allegations made in an anonymous
letter/complaint against the accused was ordered by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana vide order dated
24.09.2002 and execution of such an affidavit after 24.09.2002 and sought to be reflected to be executed by prosecutrix-B
certainly indicates an accusing finger towards the accused himself, in as much as it was the accused alone who had
exclusive knowledge of his sexual exploits/escapades and he might have got this affidavit executed by getting signature of
prosecutrix-B as explained by her in her deposition as a preemptive measure in case an FIR is ultimately registered by the
CBI in pursuance to the investigation ordered by the Hon'ble High Court and the fears of the accused became a reality when
the CBI registered the instant case FIR on 12.12.2002.
141. An argument has also been raised by learned defence counsel to the effect that brother, namely, Ranjit Singh of
prosecutrix-A remained associated with the Dera Sacha Saudha, Sirsa till his death and no person of self respect would ever
remain associated with the Dera after coming to know about alleged rape of his sister and this very circumstance speaks
volumes about falsity of the allegations levelled by prosecutrix-A. It is also pointed out that Ranjit Singh got executed
various sale deeds as representative of the Dera and all such sale deeds are admittedly subsequent to the time of alleged
rape. There is no dispute about the fact that Ranjit Singh was staunch follower of Dera Sacha Saudha. Sirsa and he was
related to Dera Sacha Saudha, Sirsa for the past 20-22 years before his death, as per own statement of the accused in his
examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., meaning thereby that he was closely associated with the Dera activities for a long
period. No doubt normal human conduct would suggest that any person of little self respect would not remain associated
with the institution headed by a person who had committed rape upon sister of such person/associate. However, the matter
can also be seen from another angle. Whenever any person remains associated with an institution or a person for a

sufficient long time, it is certain that questions are going to be raised and such person is going to be put to answer
searching questions by others in case such a person abruptly severes his tie with such an institution/person and therefore
in order to dodge all gazing eyes and to avoid answering unpleasant queries, a person may adopt middle path and severe his
ties slowly with passage of time. As per the evidence coming on record, it is very much made out that Ranjit Singh had
withdrawn his two daughters from the Dera institution, besides taking back his sister i.e. prosecutrix-A back to home from
Dera premises. Moreover, PW6/Paramjit Singh and PW7/Joginder Singh have also have also categorically deposed that Ranjit
Singh had considerably reduced frequency of his visit to the Dera in the year 2000. Therefore, execution of sale deeds by
deceased Ranjit Singh in the year 2001 cannot be held to be such a significant event which can be held to be discrediting
entire testimony of prosecutrix-A regarding her rape by the accused. The tone of testimonies of prosecutrix-A/PW5,
PW6/Paramjit Singh and PW7/Joginder Singh apparently make out that Ranjit Singh was under tremendous pressure from
Dera people to come to the Dera and he also feared for his life and said Ranjit Singh lost his life on 10.07.2002 at the hands
of his assailants. Even though, issue of murder of said Ranjit Singh is a matter of separate trial which is to be decided as per
law on the basis of evidence obtaining therein and therefore no comment qua the same is desirable at this stage.
142. Learned defence counsel has also argued that place of occurrence itself remained unproved as the prosecution failed
to establish place of occurrence by bringing on record duly prepared site plan. At the cost of repetition, instant case was
investigated by the CBI in pursuance to directions passed by the Hon'ble High Court on receiving an anonymous
letter/complaint regarding allegation of sexual exploitation of the Sadhvis in the dera premises by the accused i.e. Chief of
the Dera. The victims/prosecutrix had already left the dera premises when the investigating agency approached them and
moreover both the victims had also settled in life after getting married. As per the deposition of investigating officer i.e.
PW15/Satish Dagar, he visited the Dera in the course of investigation on 14.07.2005 and was in the progress of preparing
the site plan of the place of incident i.e. Gufa, however Inder Sain, Manager, Dera Sacha Saudha, Sirsa told him that he
would get prepared a proper site plan and accordingly he sent site plan Ex. PW15/13 to him and that he (IO) received
sketch plan of old Dera Sacha Saudha, Sirsa through his (Manager) forwarding letter Ex. PW15/12 and the site plan sent to
him by Inder Sain was correct as per the existing position of the Gufa and entrance to the Gufa and surrounding shown in
the site plan are correct as he had seen the place shown in the site plan. No doubt prosecution has not examined the maker
of the site plan, nevertheless the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Yogesh Singh Vs. Mahabeer and others, 2016 (4) RCR, Criminal
753 has held that site plan is not a ground to disbelieve otherwise credible testimony of witness even if site plan of incident
is not prepared properly.
143. It is argued by learned defence counsel that charge framed against the accused is defective as to time, place and
date of alleged offences and therefore, accused has been prejudiced on account of such defective charge and has not
been able to put up proper defence. It is pointed out that the prosecution has failed to substantiate its allegations in the
light of charges framed against the accused as the time of alleged offence qua prosecutrix 'A' has been mentioned at 8.00
p.m., but as per the cross-examination of this prosecutrix, the alleged occurrence is alleged to have taken place in the
night. It is also pointed out that as per the final report submitted by the investigating agency, the alleged offences qua
prosecutrix 'A' and prosecutrix 'B' were allegedly committed at two different places i.e. new Dera and old Dera, which are
places at a distance of about 7-8 KMS, from each other, but while framing charges against the accused, no such distinction
has been mentioned qua alleged offences against prosecutrix 'A' and prosecutrix 'B' and thus, great prejudice has been
caused to the accused in defending his case. It is trite law to state that the purpose of a charge is to tell an accused
person as precisely and concisely as possible of the allegations with which he was charged and framing of charge must
convey to the accused with sufficient clearness and certainty as to which of the offences, prosecution intends to prove
against him and of which the accused person is required to clear himself. Section 211 to 214 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure provide provisions as to how a charge is to be drawn up and a combined reading of aforesaid provisions make out
that as far as framing of charge is concerned, not only all the material particulars are to be set out but the particulars as to
time, place and person and also the provisions of law that are alleged to have been contravened, must be spelt out in the
charge. As per the prosecution case, the accused is alleged to have committed rape upon the prosecutrix 'A' and
prosecutrix 'B' at different points of time in places comprised in the area of Dera Sacha Sauda. Sirsa, Further, as per the
final report submitted by the investigating agency, prosecutrix 'A' has alleged that accused committed rape upon her on
28/29.8.1999 in the Gufa which is part of area of Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa and likewise, prosecutrix 'B' has alleged that
accused committed rape upon her in the month of September, 1999 in the Gufa which is also part and parcel of the area of
Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa. Both the prosecutrix, while deposing in the court, have substantiated their allegations qua time,
place and manner of occurrence and have deposed that it was accused Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh who committed
rape upon them and had also threatened them of dire consequences and extended threats to their life and lives of their
family members while committing the above-said offences. After going through the records of the case, especially the
charge-sheet framed against the accused, this court is of the considered opinion that there is no ambiguity in the charges
framed against the accused as the particulars as to the time, place and accused person and as also the provisions of law
making out a specific offence of the acts committed by the accused, are clearly spelt out and therefore, all the essential
requirements of framing of charges against the accused person have explicitly been complied with and accused person had
sufficiently been conveyed the allegations against him with as much clarity and certainty as is possible of the matter and
therefore, the accused had precise knowledge of the charges which the prosecution intended to prove against him and no
prejudice can be stated to have been caused in the light of charges framed against the accused and read over and
explained to him vide order dated 06.09.2008. Though both the prosecutrix have substantiated their allegations against the
accused qua time and place of occurrence, however, it is again well settled law that mistake in the timing of occurrence in
the charge is not fatal and if any reference is needed on this aspect, then reference can be made to case titled as Tara
Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan 2000 CrLJ 1982 and Banamali Tripathy Vs. Emperor AIR 1943 Pat. 212.
144. As a sequel to the forgoing discussion, it is held that prosecution/CBI has produced cogent and reliable evidence to
prove the guilt of the accused for the charged offences beyond shadow of reasonable doubt and accordingly point No. 1 is
decided in favour of the prosecution and against the accused. Further since defence has failed to improbablize the
prosecution case by adducing any cogent evidence, therefore point No. 2 is decided against the accused and in favour of
the prosecution.
Conclusion
145. In view of the above discussion, it is held that prosecution/CBI has been able to establish beyond reasonable doubt
guilt of accused Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh for committing rape upon prosecutrix-A/PW5 on 28/29.08.1999 in the
area of Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa and also for criminally intimidating said prosecutrix and hence accused Baba Gurmeet
Ram Rahim Singh is hereby held guilty for committing offences punishable under Section 376 IPC and Section 506 IPC qua
prosecutrix-A and accordingly convicted. Further prosecution/CBI has also been able to establish beyond reasonable
doubt guilt of accused Baba Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh for committing rape upon prosecutrix-B/PW10 in September 1999
in the area of Dera Sacha Sauda. Sirsa and also for criminally intimidating said prosecutrix and hence accused Baba
Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh is hereby held guilty for committing offences punishable under Section 376 IPC and Section 506
IPC qua prosecutrix-B and accordingly convicted. Let the accused be taken into custody and be produced in the court on
28.08.2017 for hearing on quantum of sentence, in compliance of provisions of Section 235 (2) Cr.P.C.

Announced in open Court. Sd/-
Dated: 25.08.2017 (Jagdeep Singh)

Special Judge (CBI)
Haryana at Panchkula

CBI Vs Baba Gurmeet Singh Maharaj Gurmeet Singh SKM C454e17082922370COM687860

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

CBI Vs Baba Gurmeet Singh Maharaj Gurmeet Singh SKM C454e17082922370COM687860

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

IN THE COURT OF JAGDEEP SINGH, SPECIAL JUDGE, CBI (HARYANA) AT PANCHKULA.

UID NO.: HR0125

Case Type CHI

Filing No. 3178/2013

Filing Date: 27.10.2007

Registration No. 1853/2013

Date of Registration 27.10.2007

CNR No. HRPK01-000049-2007

Judgment Reserved on 17.08.2017

Judgment Delivered on 25.08.2017

RC No-5(S)/2002/SIU-XV/CHG, dated 12.12.2002

Police Station: Special Crime Branch, CBI, Chandigarh.

19-03-2018 (Page 1 of 56) www.manupatra.com Central University of Bihar

19-03-2018 (Page 2 of 56) www.manupatra.com Central University of Bihar

19-03-2018 (Page 3 of 56) www.manupatra.com Central University of Bihar

19-03-2018 (Page 4 of 56) www.manupatra.com Central University of Bihar

Charges framed against the accused

19-03-2018 (Page 5 of 56) www.manupatra.com Central University of Bihar

19-03-2018 (Page 6 of 56) www.manupatra.com Central University of Bihar

19-03-2018 (Page 7 of 56) www.manupatra.com Central University of Bihar

19-03-2018 (Page 8 of 56) www.manupatra.com Central University of Bihar

19-03-2018 (Page 9 of 56) www.manupatra.com Central University of Bihar

19-03-2018 (Page 10 of 56) www.manupatra.com Central University of Bihar

19-03-2018 (Page 11 of 56) www.manupatra.com Central University of Bihar

Examination of the Accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

19-03-2018 (Page 12 of 56) www.manupatra.com Central University of Bihar

19-03-2018 (Page 13 of 56) www.manupatra.com Central University of Bihar

19-03-2018 (Page 14 of 56) www.manupatra.com Central University of Bihar

19-03-2018 (Page 15 of 56) www.manupatra.com Central University of Bihar

19-03-2018 (Page 16 of 56) www.manupatra.com Central University of Bihar

19-03-2018 (Page 17 of 56) www.manupatra.com Central University of Bihar

19-03-2018 (Page 18 of 56) www.manupatra.com Central University of Bihar

19-03-2018 (Page 19 of 56) www.manupatra.com Central University of Bihar

19-03-2018 (Page 20 of 56) www.manupatra.com Central University of Bihar

19-03-2018 (Page 21 of 56) www.manupatra.com Central University of Bihar

19-03-2018 (Page 22 of 56) www.manupatra.com Central University of Bihar

19-03-2018 (Page 23 of 56) www.manupatra.com Central University of Bihar

19-03-2018 (Page 24 of 56) www.manupatra.com Central University of Bihar

19-03-2018 (Page 25 of 56) www.manupatra.com Central University of Bihar

19-03-2018 (Page 26 of 56) www.manupatra.com Central University of Bihar

19-03-2018 (Page 27 of 56) www.manupatra.com Central University of Bihar

19-03-2018 (Page 28 of 56) www.manupatra.com Central University of Bihar

19-03-2018 (Page 29 of 56) www.manupatra.com Central University of Bihar

19-03-2018 (Page 30 of 56) www.manupatra.com Central University of Bihar

19-03-2018 (Page 31 of 56) www.manupatra.com Central University of Bihar

19-03-2018 (Page 32 of 56) www.manupatra.com Central University of Bihar

19-03-2018 (Page 33 of 56) www.manupatra.com Central University of Bihar

19-03-2018 (Page 34 of 56) www.manupatra.com Central University of Bihar

19-03-2018 (Page 35 of 56) www.manupatra.com Central University of Bihar

19-03-2018 (Page 36 of 56) www.manupatra.com Central University of Bihar

19-03-2018 (Page 37 of 56) www.manupatra.com Central University of Bihar

19-03-2018 (Page 38 of 56) www.manupatra.com Central University of Bihar

19-03-2018 (Page 39 of 56) www.manupatra.com Central University of Bihar

19-03-2018 (Page 40 of 56) www.manupatra.com Central University of Bihar

19-03-2018 (Page 41 of 56) www.manupatra.com Central University of Bihar

19-03-2018 (Page 42 of 56) www.manupatra.com Central University of Bihar

19-03-2018 (Page 43 of 56) www.manupatra.com Central University of Bihar

19-03-2018 (Page 44 of 56) www.manupatra.com Central University of Bihar

19-03-2018 (Page 45 of 56) www.manupatra.com Central University of Bihar

19-03-2018 (Page 46 of 56) www.manupatra.com Central University of Bihar

19-03-2018 (Page 47 of 56) www.manupatra.com Central University of Bihar

19-03-2018 (Page 48 of 56) www.manupatra.com Central University of Bihar

19-03-2018 (Page 49 of 56) www.manupatra.com Central University of Bihar