SC tells UP to provide protection to witnesses
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed the Uttar Pradesh government to grant protection to the witnesses of Lakhimpur Kheri violence in which eight people including four farmers were killed during a farmers’ protest.
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) NV Ramana asked the UP government, represented by senior advocates Harish Salve and Garima Prasad, to record the statements of other relevant witnesses before judicial magistrates under section 164 of the CrPC.
“We direct the district judge concerned to entrust the task of recording of evidence under Section 164 of the CrPC to the nearest judicial magistrates available,” said the bench which also comprised justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli.
Statements under Section 164 of the CrPC (Code of Criminal Procedure) are recorded
before a judicial magistrate and they have evidentiary value.
The bench asked Salve to convey its concerns to forensic labs and experts on preparation of reports on electronic evidence of the incident and also directed the state government to file its report on two
complaints including the one related to the lynching of a journalist.
“The state is directed to file separate replies in the cases,” the bench said and fixed the plea for further hearing on November 8.
During the hearing, the bench raised the question over the number of eye witnesses made by the prosecution in the case and said, “The case is that thousands of farmers were going on and a rally was going on. Only 23 witnesses are eye witnesses?” Salve said that out of 68 witnesses, statements of 30 witnesses have been recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC and some more testimonies will be recorded.
“Of these 30 witnesses, 23 claim to be eyewitnesses. A lot of witnesses are formal witnesses of recovery and all,” Salve said.
He also submitted several digital evidence have been recovered and sent for examination by experts.
Meanwhile, the SIT probing the Lakhimpur Kheri violence case on Tuesday arrested two people in connection with the lynching of BJP workers, according to a statement issued by the Uttar Pradesh Police.
Gurvinder Singh and Vichitra Singh have been arrested by the Special Investigation Team (SIT), the statement issued by the police’s Crime Branch-Lakhimpur said, adding that the arrests pertain to a FIR registered in the case on a complaint by Sumit Jaiswal on October 4.
Jaiswal, a BJP ward member who has been arrested in the case, claimed that “bad elements” among farm law protesters attacked BJP workers. The FIR had no reference to the mowing down of farmers.
The incident on October 3, which has led to a political uproar in the state that goes to the polls early next year, 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 covering the rally was also killed.The Mishras claim that Ashish Mishra was not even at the site.
On October 6, a 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?