The Supreme Court on Wednesday pulled up the Uttar Pradesh government for the sluggish pace of investigation into the Lakhimpur Kheri incident that left eight people, including four farmers, dead on October 3, while observing that the impression this gives is that the state is “dragging its feet”.
“This (investigation) cannot be an unending story... We get the impression that you are dragging your feet. Please, do the needful to dispel that,” said a bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) NV Ramana, as it heard the case registered by the top court on its own (suo motu) as a public interest litigation.
The bench, which also comprised justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli, took umbrage to the fact that the state police was yet to record statements of all the crucial witnesses before a judicial magistrate so that their versions could have a greater evidentiary value during the trial.
Ashish Mishra, son of Union minister of state for home affairs Ajay Mishra ‘Teni’, who is named as an accused in the murder first information report (FIR) lodged by the farmers, was arrested on October 9, a day after the Supreme Court came down heavily on the state government for the police’s lenient handling of Mishra.
Senior advocate Harish Salve, representing the Yogi Adityanath government, on Wednesday cited a status report on the probe submitted in the court that pointed out that statements of 44 witnesses were recorded by the police, but only four were taken to a magistrate to put their versions on record under section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
{{/usCountry}}Senior advocate Harish Salve, representing the Yogi Adityanath government, on Wednesday cited a status report on the probe submitted in the court that pointed out that statements of 44 witnesses were recorded by the police, but only four were taken to a magistrate to put their versions on record under section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
{{/usCountry}}“You have said in your status report that you recorded statements of 44 witnesses. But only four of them were recorded under section 164 (of the CrPC). Why haven’t you recorded statements of others under 164?” the bench asked Salve.
“Your SIT (special investigation team) is in a better position to recognise who are the most vulnerable witnesses and can be browbeaten. We want to know why statements of only four have been recorded under 164? You know that evidentiary value will be far better for statements under 164,” added the bench.
Salve replied that the concern of the court initially was that the police was going slow on the accused but all the 10 accused have now been arrested. He also mentioned that there were two FIRs arising out of violence on October 3, and that the arrests in the second FIR was a “little difficult” since a crowd had allegedly lynched four people after the vehicle ran over an equal number of protesting farmers.
But the bench made it clear that it was not looking into the second FIR.
“We are only concerned about the FIR where the farmers died,” the CJI told Salve.
The bench also questioned the state government about the period of custodial interrogation of the accused in the FIR on the farmers’ deaths, adding that the police “cannot get out anything unless the accused are in police custody”.
At this, the state’s additional advocate general, Garima Prashad, informed the bench that the accused were interrogated in custody, and that they were now in jail while the police have been working on reconstructing the crime scene.
Salve submitted that several phones have been seized, and the purported videos of the incident have been sent for forensic examination. “If the forensic reports come, there may not be any need for further questioning in custody,” he added.
To this, the CJI responded: “Mr Salve, it should not be a never-ending story... Ask your team to record section 164 statements as soon as possible...also, ensure protection and safety of witnesses.”
Salve assured the bench that the necessary steps for recording of section 164 statements and witness protection will be taken to dispel the doubts of the bench.
The court then adjourned the matter to October 26, asking the UP government to file a further status report on the investigation before the next date.
Advocate Shiv Kumar Tripathi, the lawyer whose letter to the CJI formed the basis of this PIL, requested the bench for a copy of the status report that was filed by the state government in a sealed cover envelope. The bench, however, said it would consider sharing the report on the next date of hearing.
The incident on October 3 claimed eight lives. Farm groups say a Mahindra Thar owned by Ajay Mishra mowed down protesters from behind while they were returning from a demonstration in Tikunia village on Sunday afternoon. A video clip that is yet to be authenticated forensically shows the same.
The minister and his son, however, deny the charge that the latter was in the vehicle and say farmers pelted the car with stones that led to the driver losing control of the vehicle. They also accuse the protesters of lynching two BJP workers and the car’s driver. A local journalist was also killed.The Mishras claim that Ashish Mishra was not even at the site.
On October 6, a new 45-second video of the incident showed the Thar ploughing through the farmers at high speed, with two vehicles in tow. The identities of individuals in the vehicles were not clear and HT could not independently verify the authenticity of the clips.
On October 8, the apex court pulled up the UP government for not immediately arresting Ashish Mishra, commenting that the state police do not appear to be “really serious” even as the “brutal” episode left eight people dead.
“This is an offence registered under Section 302 (murder charge under the Indian Penal Code). Do you treat everyone in the same manner? Issue notice and then wait for them to appear? Will an accused in every part of the country be treated in the same way like the present case? Giving them an invitation that you please come? We want to question you so you kindly come?” the bench had asked Salve and added that the court is “not satisfied” with the investigation conducted so far.
Salve conceded at the time that what needed to be done was not done, and that gave a “personal assurance” that the state will be in a position to satisfy the court with its action by the next date of hearing (October 20).
Mishra was arrested shortly after.