[Devotees Castration Case] | Punjab and Haryana HC sets aside Order by SJM directing CBI to produce documents requested by Ram Rahim

Punjab and Haryana High Court:In a petition filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (‘CBI’) under Section 482¹ of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking an order to set aside the order dated 16-02-2019 by the Special Judicial Magistrate (SJM), CBI Haryana, Panchkula whereby CBI was directed to place on record and supply certain witness statements and documents mentioned in applications dated 25-01-2019 and 31-01-2019 preferred by Gurmeet Ram Rahim (‘Ram Rahim’) (respondent 1) and respondent 2 respectively, a Single Judge Bench of Kuldeep Tiwari*, J. held that the impugned order failed to pass the test of legality and remanded the matter back to the Special Judicial Magistrate for deciding the matter afresh in line with legal principles laid down herein within four weeks.

Background

A devotee of Ram Rahim, head of Dera Sacha Sauda, filed a writ petition wherein he alleged that Ram Rahim caused grievous injury to him and 400 other males by way of castration. It was further alleged that Ram Rahim induced people with hope that such emasculation would lead to realization of God. It was the case of the devotee that after the influence of Ram Rahim had worn out, he objectively saw the harm caused to himself and approached the Court to seek a CBI inquiry for the same.

Considering the medical report, serious allegations of mass castration, and the allegations being voiced against a highly acclaimed person like Ram Rahim, this Court, vide order dated 23-12-2024, directed CBI to register the case and undertake the investigation.

Thereafter, a First Information Report (‘FIR’) was registered under Sections 120-B², 326³, 417⁴, and 506⁵ of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and investigation was conducted whereby CBI concluded that respondent 2 was one of the doctors who conducted castration surgery on the devotees at the behest of Ram Rahim.

After filing of the charge sheet, Ram Rahim filed an application seeking supply of witness statements under Sections 207⁶ and 91⁷ of CrPC before the Special Judicial Magistrate, which was declined. A petition filed by Ram Rahim to assail the said order was also dismissed by this Court. Subsequently, he filed another application under Section 91 of CrPC which was again dismissed by the Special Judicial Magistrate. Aggrieved, he filed another petition before this Court and vide order dated 03-12-2018, the petition was partly allowed whereby the Trial Court was directed to allow Ram Rahim to inspect the whole record. Thereafter, the Special Judicial Magistrate passed the impugned order on the above-mentioned applications dated 25-01-2019 and 31-01-2019 which were preferred by Ram Rahim and the doctor, directing CBI to place on judicial record and supply some statements and documents to both respondents.

Thus, CBI filed the present petition in 2019.

CBI contended that Ram Rahim and the doctor had adopted all tactics to prolong the criminal proceedings against them and that the direction by the Special Judicial Magistrate was against the object of Section 162⁸ of CrPC. It was also argued that the impugned order suffered from gross violation of the mandate enclosed in Section 172⁹ of CrPC and was liable to be set aside.

As per the contentions of Ram Rahim and the doctor, CBI had only relied upon the statements of the witnessed who supported its case and the statements of 87 witnesses who had denied the allegations had not been made available to them.

During the proceedings of this petition, this Court rendered a clarification on 01-05-2023 that the documents supplied in pursuance of the order made by this Court could not be relied on till the next date of hearing.

Analysis

The Court relied on In Re: To Issue Certain Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies in Criminal Trials v. State of A.P., 2017 SCC OnLine SC 2045 wherein the Supreme Court held that while furnishing the list of statements, documents, and material objects under Sections 207/208 of CrPC, the Magistrate should also ensure that a list of other materials should be furnished to the accused.

Based on the inference stemming from various judicial precedents, the Court stated that the relevancy and desirability of a document which is being sought is the most striking aspect for the Trial Court to consider while making any decision regarding the grant of access to such documents. It was also said that if a document has no relevancy, it is well within the domain of the Trial Court to decline its production.

Moving onto the merits of the case, the Court stated that the law was clear that the witness statement recorded under Section 161¹⁰ of CrPC could not be treated as substantive evidence. It was further stated that a collective reading of Section 162 of CrPC (along with its proviso) and Section 145¹¹ of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (‘IEA’), made it clear that a statement recorded under Section 161 of CrPC could only be used for contradicting the prosecution witness(es) in the manner indicated in Section 145 of the IEA and for no other purpose.

Thus, the Court held that the reasons assigned by the Special Judicial Magistrate did not pass the test of legality. It was said that the production of the statements of the said 87 witnesses had been allowed by the Special Judicial Magistrate without considering its desirability, relevancy, and necessity. The Court further held that the order was perfunctory because the Special Judicial Magistrate merely considered the statements of a few witnesses while passing such direction.

The Court reiterated the law that the case diary was not evidence, and its production could not be insisted upon by the accused, except for the reasons prescribed in Section 172(3). However, the Court stated that the Special Judicial Magistrate did not bear this provision in mind while ordering the production of documents i.e., the case diary and had also erred in directing production of the status report as it was not a part of the investigation.

The Court also noted that in the order wherein this Court had partly allowed the application of the respondents, the Trial Court was specifically directed to supply the relevant record including witness statements only in case there was relevancy and admissibility thereof. The Court further opined that the Special Judicial Magistrate had ordered production of the material without such evaluation and added that the respondents attempted to make a roving and fishing inquiry by bringing on record the statements and documents, which was not permissible in view of the law laid down in the case of State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568.

The Court also found itself unable to concur with the observation of the Special Judicial Magistrate that since there was no request made by CBI not to supply the statement(s) to the defence, the same could be brought on record because the desirability, admissibility, and relevancy were sine qua non for bringing the material on record with the aid of Section 91 of CrPC.

Thus, the Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Special Judicial Magistrate for deciding the two applications afresh in view of this judgment within four weeks. Lastly, the Court directed that the interim direction that the documents presented cannot be relied upon, shall stay in force till the applications are decided.

[Central Bureau of Investigation v. Gurmeet Ram Rahim, 2024 SCC OnLine P&H 14351, decided on 20-12-2024]

*Order authored by Justice Kuldeep Tiwari

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the petitioner: Advocate Archit Rana,

For the respondent: Advocates Aman Arora, S.P. Arora, and Deepak Sharma