E-Paper
5 years on, trials in 2 Lakhimpur cases show contrasting progress amid fresh Supreme Court scrutiny
In a case involving the deaths of farmers, the Supreme Court mandated Uttar Pradesh to replace public prosecutor PB Mishra amid claims of mishandled witnesses.
Prefer HTon Google
On October 3, 2021, a car allegedly owned by former Union minister Ajay Mishra “Teni” ran over five people, triggering violence that killed three more people. On October 4, police filed a first information report (FIR) –– numbered 219 –– against the then minister’s son Ashish Mishra and 13 others, charging them under Indian Penal Code (IPC) sections 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting, armed with deadly weapon), 149 (unlawful assembly), 302 (murder), 307 (attempt to murder), 326 (grievous hurt by dangerous weapons), 427 (mischief), 120B (conspiracy) and Section 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
On the same day, police filed a second FIR –– numbered 220 –– against seven farmers, charging them with murder, rioting, unlawful assembly, voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons, grievous hurt, criminal intimidation and abetment, among other offences. It was based on a complaint by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Sumit Jaiswal.
During investigation, the special investigation team (SIT) probing the violence summoned over 50 farmers and arrested seven of them before filing 1,300-page charge sheet in January 2022 against four farmers— Vichitra Singh, Gurvinder Singh, Kamaljeet Singh and Gurpreet Singh. Three others — Ranjeet Singh, Sonu alias Kanwarjeet and Avatar Singh — were cleared.
Five years on, the trials in the two cases have shown contrasting progress, HT has found.
In the first FIR, 87 out of 103 witnesses have deposed, including the 20 who turned hostile –– after multiple top court prods. All 14 accused are out on bail. The trial is more than two-thirds through the witness examination stage.
In the second FIR, all 87 witnesses have deposed and final arguments in the trial are set to begin. “Now, final arguments will start,” said public prosecutor Sanjay Singh, who is representing the state government in the second trial.
That’s not all.
The initial list in the first FIR had 441 witnesses –– including 208 eyewitnesses, 15 injured people, including police personnel, and 15 doctors who conducted post-mortems –– but it was whittled down to 103.
This controversy was one of the issues last week before the Supreme Court, which directed the Uttar Pradesh government to replace the public prosecutor in the first FIR, after being told that crucial witnesses in the case were being given up by the present prosecutor.
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant directed the UP government to replace incumbent prosecutor PB Mishra with a senior public prosecutor having a “fair experience” of conducting trial within two weeks.
The bench, also comprising justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, said, “What is unusual is that on a given date when the witnesses are called, why should the public prosecutor give up those witnesses. They are eyewitnesses. This may not be a very fair prosecution if the PP (public prosecutor) gives up on witnesses.”
The order was passed on an application moved by the victims raising concerns over the prosecutor dropping crucial witnesses and the presiding officer, Shiva Kumar Singh of the district and sessions court, Lakhimpur Kheri, issuing non-bailable warrants against one witness who sought exemption from appearance on medical grounds.
This eyewitness, Sher Singh, submitted an illness slip with a community health centre certificate for April 17, 2026, but the judge issued a non-bailable warrant against him, according to Prashant Bhushan, the lawyer for the victims. Police went to his parents’ house and intimidated them, Bhushan alleged, adding that three other witnesses summoned the next day were given up by the prosecutor.
He also said the public prosecutor – additional district government counsel Prabhakar Brahm Mishra – with only four months’ experience, told the trial court earlier this year: “Sir, I do not want to examine all these witnesses”.
HT tried contacting Prabhakar Brahm Mishra over the phone for a comment, but there was no response despite multiple attempts to reach him.
Taking serious note of complaints against trial judge Shiv Kumar Singh, the top court sought a report, in a sealed cover, from the chief justice of the Allahabad high court.
The first FIR has seen two public prosecutors in five years. “Jagjit Singh, father of one of the farmers who died and the complainant in the case, was the first prosecution witness,” former district government counsel Arvind Tripathi said. He was the first public prosecutor in the case and retired in April this year.
On October 3, 2021, four farmers protesting against the now-repealed farm laws and a journalist were mowed down by a convoy of SUVs, one of them allegedly with Ashish Mishra in it. In retaliation, two BJP workers and a driver were dragged out of a vehicle and lynched. Two vehicles were set on fire.
Since then, the first FIR has repeatedly ended up before the apex court.
“On several occasions, we approached the Supreme Court when eyewitnesses were intimidated and the trial was slow. Each time, the top court took cognisance of our complaints. However, we are hopeful that the court will deliver justice,” said Tajender Singh Virk, the farmer who was the first complainant in the violence case.
On October 7, 2021, the Supreme Court took suo motu cognisance of the matter and sought a status report from the UP government on the investigation, FIRs and arrests.
After the Allahabad high court granted bail to Ashish Mishra in February 2022, victims’ families and lawyers challenged the order. The top court cancelled the bail in April 2022, saying the victims were denied fair and effective hearing.
On January 25, 2023, it granted Ashish Mishra eight-week interim bail with conditions to leave Uttar Pradesh within one week and inform the court about his location.
On July 22, 2024, it gave Ashish Mishra regular bail with restrictions on his movement to Delhi and Lucknow, and directed the trial court to expedite the trial. In May this year, the Supreme Court expressed disappointment that no witness was examined for months and asked the trial court to summon seven-eight witnesses per date instead of three-four. “No satisfactory explanation had been furnished for repeated non-production of witnesses,” it noted, directing the presiding officer to adopt lawful measures for securing witness attendance and to ensure adherence to witness protection schemes.
