A 'no confidence'in UP probe

The Supreme Court’s strong comments on the investigation by the Uttar Pradesh police into the violence in Lakhimpur Kheri last month are an indictment of the state police and the government. The court had suo motu taken up the October 3 incidents in which seven persons were killed, and has since been tracking the case. From the beginning it has expressed dissatisfaction with the investigation of the case in which Ashish Mishra, son of Union Minister Ajay Mishra, is reported to have opened fire on a group of farmers, killing four of them. Three others were killed in retaliatory action by the farmers. It has now been established that a journalist who was alleged to have been lynched by the mob died after being run over by a car, and the state government has admitted this. The court has objected to mixing up the FIR on the firing on the farmers with that on their reaction to the attack on them. It thought there were ‘’concerted efforts to blur the line between the two cases’’ to benefit one accused.

A Special Investigation Team (SIT) of the UP police is investigating the case. The court is so unhappy with the investigation that it has thought of appointing a former high court judge to monitor it ‘’without bias’’. The court has found several aspects of the investigation unsatisfactory. It has noted that most witnesses the police have found are those who supported the version of the suspects about the incidents. There was also reluctance on the part of the police to collect evidence like the records of movements of cars and the call records of suspects. The reason given by the police was that some of the accused said they did not have mobile phones. The SIT has seized only one mobile phone from the 13 accused persons.

The court also expressed concern over the delay in getting the results of forensic examinations. After this, there are reports that forensic reports have confirmed that shots were fired from the guns of the minister’s son and his friend. The court has clearly expressed its lack of confidence in the present state and direction of the investigation and has said there is the need to "infuse fairness and impartiality" into it. It has also rejected the proposal to hand over the case to the CBI. The court has not mentioned the name of the minister’s son in its observations. But it is clear that it thinks he is being shielded by the police. The court’s apprehensions point to an attempt by the police to sabotage the case. Its comments indicate that it will not allow that and will take steps to ensure there is a fair investigation.