[BREAKING] Lakhmipur Kheri Case Probe "Not Going The Way We Expected" : Supreme Court Mulls Appointing Retired HC Judge To Monitor

The Supreme Court on Monday again expressed dissatisfaction with the Uttar Pradesh Police probe into the Lakhmipur Kheri violence of October 3, which claimed the lives of 8 people, four of them being farmers protesters who were allegedly mowed down by the vehicles in the convoy of Ashish Mishra, the son of Union Minister and BJP MP Ajay Kumar Mishra.A bench comprising the Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Hima Kohli said that the investigation is "not going the way we expected". The bench expressed dissatisfaction at the fact that the forensic lab reports regarding the video evidence have not yet come and that the mobile phones of all accused have not been seized.The bench also expressed concerns about the case against the prime accused in the case relating to attack on farmers being diluted by clubbing the investigation with the counter-case of mob lynching. The bench observed that the investigation in the both cases must be separate and the statements of witnesses in the both cases must be recorded independently.The bench said that it was proposing to appoint a retired judge from a High Court of another state to monitor the investigation to ensure that there is no overlapping of the evidence of both cases. There is a need to infuse fairness and impartiality in the investigation, the bench orally commented.Senior Advocate Harish Salve, appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh, sought for time to get instructions from the State Government on the suggestions made by the bench. Accordingly, the bench adjourned the hearing to Friday, November 12.Court Exchange"We have seen the status report. There is nothing in the status report. After the last hearing date, we granted 10 days adjournment. Lab reports have not come. It is not going the way we expected", Chief Justice of India NV Ramana said at the every outset.Senior Advocate Harish Salve, appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh, submitted that the lab reports will be ready by November 15."What about the other issues?", CJI asked."Only one accused's phone has been seized. What about others? Have you not seized?Only one accused had mobile phone?", Justice Hima Kohli asked.Salve replied that some of the accused said that they did not have phones but the CDRs have been obtained. The accused have thrown away the phones but from their CDRs, their locations are traced, Salve added. "Where have you said in the status report that the accused have thrown away their phones and their CDRs have been traced?", Justice Kohli sought to know.Justice Surya Kant asked whether there was any attempt to give benefit to one particular accused by clubbing both FIRs (FIR related to attack on protesting farmers, and the counter-FIR for the resulting mob lynching)."...prima facie it appears that one particular accused is seeking to be given benefit by overlapping two FIRs, you can appreciate very well the fate of the case. Now it is being said that there are two FIRs and the evidence collected in one FIR will be used in another. Evidence in FIR 220 is being collected in a way to protect one accused", Justice Surya Kant observed.(FIR 219 is with respect to the attack on farmers and FIR 220 is for the mob lynching)Salve said that care is being taken to ensure that both the cases are separately investigated and there is no mix-up. He said that some of the witnesses who came forward in one case started giving exculpatory statements with respect to the other case."They are being careful, they are not mixing FIR 219 and 220. They are both getting investigated. 220 becomes difficult as that was lynching incident. All CDR's are being collected. Where they were at that time is known", Salve said."What we except from the SIT is that, as far as witnesses who are coming forward to depose in FIR 219 pertaining to killing of farmers, the recording of their statements, whether under 161 or 164, that will be an independent exercise, and the investigation in 220....", Justice Kant said. Then Salve interjected to say " that will be separate".At this point, the judges had a discussion among them for some time. After the brief discussion, Justice Kant told Salve :"What it appears to us is that... this SIT is unable to maintain an investigative distances between FIR 219, 220 and the third case(related to killing of a BJP worker). If this kind of process continues, it will be a case of weighing the oral evidence in one case against the other...to ensure that evidence in 219 is recorded independently from 220 and there is no overlapping and no intermixing, we are inclined to appoint a retired judge of a different high court to monitor the investigation. Somehow, we are not confident of state judicial committee overseeing...Let a retired judge of different high court monitor".Justice Kant suggested the names of Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain or Justice Ranjit Singh, who were former judges of the Punjab and Haryana High Court."This is to infuse fairness and impartiality in the...

[BREAKING] Lakhmipur Kheri Case Probe "Not Going The Way We Expected" : Supreme Court Mulls Appointing Retired HC Judge To Monitor

Srishti Ojha

The bench said that it was of prima facie view that attempts are being made to give benefit to one particular accused in the case.

Tags