HC examines ‘sealed bullet’ in Ram Rahim’s journo murder case appeal
Defence claims that no one could have accessed the bullet prior to it being opened before the trial court, as “both seals” of the AIIMS were intact
Over seven years after Sirsa-based Dera Sacha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh was convicted and sentenced to life for the murder of journalist Ram Chander Chhatrapati, the Punjab and Haryana High Court on Tuesday physically examined the bullets produced from the 2002 case.
At the onset, Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Vikram Aggarwal closely scrutinised the case property to see whether the fired “Lapua” soft-lead bullet–– allegedly bearing the forensic expert’s marking and signature–– could have been accessed when the plastic container carrying it was said to be sealed with intact AIIMS seals.
The Bench was hearing Ram Rahim’s appeal against conviction and life sentence. The development is significant as the central controversy revolves around the defence claim that no one could have accessed the bullet prior to it being opened before the trial court, as “both seals” of the AIIMS were intact — thereby casting doubt on assertions that the forensic expert had marked or signed the projectile.
It was submitted that the bullet recovered from Chhatrapati’s body during the postmortem examination remained sealed from the moment of recovery till it was opened in court, raising a fundamental question: how was it ever examined by the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) expert in the first place?
The prosecution’s stand in the matter is that the FSL expert’s deposition before the trial court was “very clear”. He had “opened it up and the signatures are there and everything is there”.
Appearing before the Bench, a counsel described the projectile as “a Lapua bullet which has a soft lead,” adding that “it is an imported bullet having a soft lead. It is not used for the basic purpose. It is for the purpose of shooting.”
It was argued that “a normal bullet will not have soft lead. This is a soft lead,” and therefore, engravings or markings may not visibly persist over time.
Senior counsel R. Basant and RS Rai, on the other hand, built the defence case around the integrity of the seals. Reading from the record, counsel submitted: “The plastic container is duly sealed with two seals of the AIIMS… Both seals are duly sealed. They are intact…. If the seals are intact… how could anyone have access to the contents of the container?”
The prosecution countered by saying no objection regarding access or alleged prior examination had been raised before the trial court. Besides this, the expert had denied suggestions that he had not examined the weapon or conducted test firing.
The Bench, among others, was assisted in the matter by senior advocates Basant, Rai, Amit Jhanji, Ashwani Kumar, and Gautam Dutt, along with counsel Jitender Khurana. The complainant in the case was represented by senior counsel RS Bains, while special public prosecutor Ravi Kamal Gupta and Akashdeep Singh appeared for the CBI.
The Bench, during the course of hearing, observed “nothing is visible on these bullets” and sought clarity on whether the signature referred to in the deposition was on the bullet or on the container. The court was told that “so far as the container is concerned, the signatures are there”.
As regards the bullet, only the FSL expert could tell about the visibility or existence of signatures, especially given the passage of nearly 23 years and the soft-lead nature of the projectile.
