They are trying to get accused discharged: SC expresses disappointment over delay in Lakhimpur Kheri violence trials

New Delhi [India], May 8(ANI): The Supreme Court on Friday expressed disappointment over the manner in which the trial in the 2021 Lakhimpur Kheri violence cases is progressing and orally observed that attempts were being made to get the accused discharged as several witnesses were being dropped by the prosecution without any explanation.
The Court has been monitoring the progress of the trials in the matter. Today, it is noted from the latest status report filed by the Uttar Pradesh government that in one of the two connected trials pending before the Sessions Judge at Lakhimpur Kheri, the prosecution had initially proposed to examine 208 witnesses but now intends to examine only around 120 witnesses.
Referring to the developments, the Court remarked, "They are trying to get them discharged." The bench further warned that if it were to make "harsh observations", it would have consequences.
The Court recorded that Trial No. 219/2021 initially involved 208 witnesses, but eventually the prosecution proposed to examine only around 120 witnesses. It further noted that 44 witnesses had been given up and 15 discharged, while examination of 72 witnesses was still pending.
In the second connected trial, numbered 220/2021, the Court noted that out of 35 witnesses proposed to be examined, 26 had already been examined, and 9 witnesses remained.
Expressing dissatisfaction over the pace of proceedings, a bench led by the Chief Justice of India Surya Kant observed,
"We are disappointed to note that the prosecution has not assigned any reason whatsoever for no witnesses to have been examined..."
The Court directed the presiding judge to take "lawful measures" to secure the presence of witnesses and also ensure compliance with the witness protection scheme. The trial court was further directed to make an endeavour to conclude the trials in a time-bound manner.
Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, appearing for accused Ashish Mishra, submitted before the Court that Mishra had undergone "nine years of incarceration" and sought urgent listing of his application seeking suspension of sentence.
Responding to the submission, the Court said, "If there is urgency, we will examine."
Dave further submitted that no witness had been examined for a considerable period in the matter.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the complainants, opposed the submissions and stated that he intended to file an affidavit placing certain developments on record. Bhushan alleged that "something quite disturbing is happening" after going through the forensic material and urged the Court to intervene.
He further alleged that police officials had been visiting the houses of witnesses before the dates fixed for examination and said he would place the issue on affidavit. Referring to paragraph 5 of the status report, Bhushan also raised concerns regarding the handling of witnesses.
The Uttar Pradesh government informed the Court that there were two separate trials arising out of the incident and clarified that the first trial pertained to the petitioners.
The Court also referred to another connected case arising from the October 4, 2021, incident at Padua Kheri and noted that while a report had been filed against the main accused, investigation concerning the petitioner was still pending. The bench directed the Investigating Officer to complete the probe within four weeks and directed the presiding officer to submit a report before the Court.
The case pertains to the October 3, 2021, violence at Lakhimpur Kheri in Uttar Pradesh, in which eight people, including four farmers, were killed. According to the prosecution, a vehicle allegedly linked to Mishra ran over farmers protesting against the Centre's three farm laws. Mishra was arrested on October 9, 2021 and was later granted bail in February 2022.
The High Court, while dealing with the matter earlier, had observed that the death of four farmers and the presence of the accused's vehicle at the spot constituted significant circumstances and described the incident as falling within the category of a heinous crime. (ANI)