The Supreme Court on April 24 orally said day-to-day hearings in the Lakhimpur Kheri killings case in the Sessions Court may affect the pace of other pending cases before the trial judge.
Appearing before a Bench led by Justice Surya Kant, advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the victims, said only three witnesses of over 200 witnesses in the case have testified so far. He said that cases in which influential people tend to go on indefinitely in his own experience. Mr. Bhushan urged the Supreme Court to direct that at least two witnesses should be examined every week in the trial court.
Union Minister Ajay Mishra’s son Ashish Mishra is an accused in the case. The prosecution case is that an SUV allegedly belonging to Mishra’s convoy mowed down farmers protesting controversial agricultural laws in a rally at Lakhimpur Kheri district in Uttar Pradesh on October 3, 2021.
“Day-to-day hearing may not be possible… It may affect other case before the judge,” the Bench addressed Mr. Bhushan.
“Then let it go to another court… In my experiences such cases with influential people tend to go on and on and meanwhile witnesses either turn hostile or grow old and die,” Mr. Bhushan responded.
“That is precisely why we have kept the case pending here. Usually, we dispose of such cases,” the Court said.
Additional Advocate General for Uttar Pradesh Garima Prasad said the next date of hearing is on May 5.
The Bench said it was keeping a watch on the progress of the trial and posted the case on July 11.
ALSO READ | Lakhimpur Kheri violence: Supreme Court dissatisfied with U.P. government’s status report
The Court noted that the Session Court has sent a status report on the case.
On January 25, the Court had granted Mishra interim bail. The court on Monday said the interim relief would continue.
At the time of giving bail, the Supreme Court had underscored that it would continue to “indirectly supervise” the trial.
“We might withdraw when the proceedings tend to continue in a smooth and uninterrupted manner… Right now, we are having indirect supervision of the trial. It is required,” the Bench had observed orally in a hearing in March.
The Court, while granting Mishra interim bail in January, had described the crime as “ghastly” and “unfortunate”.
The Court had directed Mishra to leave Uttar Pradesh so that he posed no danger to witnesses waiting to testify against him in the main murder case. He was also banned from entering Uttar Pradesh or staying in Delhi.
The Court had said the interim bail and conditions imposed on Mishra was a balancing of the right of the accused to liberty, the right of the State to conduct a fair trial and the right of the victims to get justice.
