Ram Rahim has renounced world, not able

to pay Rs 30 lakh costs, counsel tells HC

Chandigarh, October 9- Acting on the appeal filed by jailed Dera Sacha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh against his conviction and the 20-year jail sentence in a rape case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court on Monday put the prosecution—the Central Bureau of Investigation—on notice.
As the case came up for hearing, Ram Rahim’s counsel told the Division Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Sudhir Mittal that the Dera head had “renounced the world” and was not in a position to pay the Rs 30 lakh costs imposed by the trial court to be paid to the rape survivors.
Appearing for Ram Rahim, senior advocate SK Garg Narwana said the Dera properties had been “attached” and the Dera head was not in a position to pay the amount.
Taking up the matter, the Bench admitted the appeal filed against his conviction by Ram Rahim. Another appeal filed by the rape victims was also admitted by the High Court Bench.
The Bench asked Ram Rahim to deposit the compensation amount, awarded by the trial court to the victims, as FDR in a nationalised bank in the Panchkula court’s name. The amount would be disbursed only after the court order.
The directions by the Division Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Sudhir Mittal came on Ram Rahim’s appeal filed by counsel Vishal Garg Narwana. The Dera chief was seeking directions for setting aside the August 25 order vide which he was convicted of raping two dera followers and the subsequent order of August 28 sentencing him to 20 years.
Challenging the CBI special court verdict, Ram Rahim has submitted that the prosecution—the CBI--had not conducted his potency test. Ram Rahim had claimed before the trial court that he was not virile since 1990, much before allegations of rape were levelled against him.
“The prosecution did not get the medical examination of the accused-appellant done to prove that he was capable of performing sexually. The finding of the trial court that the plea about his incapacity after 1990 is not substantiated because of his two daughters is totally erroneous. The trial court has presumed that because he is father of two children, therefore his plea was not correct without ascertaining the age of his two children, especially when the plea of accused-appellant recorded under Section 313 is after a year,” Ram Rahim’s counsel SK Garg Narwana has submitted before the High Court in the appeal.
Delay of more than six years in recording the statements of the women victims by the CBI after the incident was another ground taken by Ram Rahim in his plea.



ਮੁੱਖ ਖ਼ਬਰਾਂ : 

ਖੇਡ ਖ਼ਬਰਾ : 

ਪੰਜਾਬ ਖ਼ਬਰਾਂ : 

ਨਵੇਂ ਲੇਖ : 


Random Video 

Latest Added Magzine