The Supreme Court on Monday expressed its dissatisfactionwith the SIT probe in the Lakhimpur Kheri violence incident with regards to theseizure of mobile phone of only one accused and the process of collection ofevidence in the two FIRs. It told the Uttar Pradesh government that it isinclined to appoint a retired high court judge to monitor day-to-dayinvestigation till charge sheet is filed.
A bench headed by Chief Justice N.V. Ramana andcomprising Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli told a counsel, "We aretrying to introduce impartiality and fairness in the matter..."
At the outset, the Chief Justice told senior advocateHarish Salve, representing the Uttar Pradesh government, "There is nothingin the status report. We granted 10 days time...lab reports have not come sofar. It (the probe in the incident) is not going the way we expected."
The top court queried Salve why mobile phones of allaccused in Lakhimpur Kheri incident have not been seized, except that of primeaccused Ashish Misra?
Justice Kohli specifically asked whether it is the standof the government that the other accused did not use cell phones.
Salve submitted there were a total 16 accused in thecase, out of which three died and 13 have been arrested.
Kohli asked, "The mobile phones of one accused outof 13 accused has been seized?"
The top court told the Uttar Pradesh government that bothincidents -- mowing down of protesting farmers by a vehicle and the lynching ofthe accused -- have to be investigated with impartiality and fairness.
The top court said prima facie view it appears that oneparticular accused is being benefited by recording statements of witnesses in aparticular manner.
Justice Kant said: "What appears to us is that SITis unable to keep the investigative distance between the FIRs (one wherefarmers were mowed down by the car and the other accused werekilled)...important to ensure evidence in 219 and 220 (FIRs) recordedindependently".
The bench, stating it is not confident regarding theprocess adopted by Uttar Pradesh SIT to record the evidence, said: "We areinclined to appoint a judge from a different high court to monitor day-to-dayinvestigation...till the charge sheet is filed."
The bench suggested the names of two former Punjab andHaryana High Court judges to oversee the manner in which witnesses' statementsare being recorded to avoid mixing up of the cases.
The bench sought response from the Uttar Pradeshgovernment on the appointment of an independent judge to monitor theinvestigation till charge sheet is filed and posted the matter for furtherhearing on Friday.