SC flags delay in Lakhimpur Kheri trial, directs trial court to ensure witness presence

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday expressed disappointment over the slow pace of trial in the 2021 Lakhimpur Kheri violence case and directed the trial court to take lawful measures to secure the presence of witnesses while ensuring compliance with the witness protection scheme.

A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi highlighted with concern that no prosecution witness had been examined during the last two months despite the issuance of bailable and non-bailable warrants.

"We are disappointed to note that the so-called status report does not assign any reason for the non-production of witnesses on previous dates. No witness appears to have been examined for two months," the CJI-led bench observed.

During the hearing, the state government informed the apex court that in the principal trial relating to the deaths of protesting farmers, 44 prosecution witnesses have been examined and 15 witnesses discharged, while 72 witnesses still remain to be examined.

In the connected trial relating to the subsequent mob violence, 26 out of 35 witnesses had already deposed, and nine witnesses remained pending for examination.

Senior advocate Siddharth Dave, appearing for Ashish Mishra -- the prime accused in the case and son of former Union Minister of State for Home Affairs Ajay Mishra Teni -- submitted that no witness examination had taken place in the recent past despite coercive processes being issued by the trial court.

"No witness has been examined for the last two months. Bailable warrants issued, even non-bailable warrants issued, but no one has appeared," he told the top court.

Questioning the prosecution over the delay, the bench remarked: "What have you done from March till today? Instead of summoning three-four witnesses, summon seven-eight witnesses. At least those who are present can be examined."

Referring to an earlier status report, the apex court recorded that despite a witness appearing before the trial court on one occasion, the prosecution chose not to examine the witness, resulting in further delay.