Hapur Lynching: What the Supreme Court ordered

Hapur Lynching: What the Supreme Court ordered

Shruti Mahajan

The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to direct the Uttar Pradesh Police to file a supplementary chargesheet in the case of Hapur lynching on the basis of the statements recorded of the brothers of the deceased.

The Vacation Bench of Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and Aniruddha Bose, however, granted liberty to the petitioner to bring these statements to the notice of the trial court which can then pass appropriate orders.

The petitioner, represented by, advocate Vrinda Grover, told the Court today that the trial in the case has commenced. However, the statements of the brothers of the deceased, Saleem and Nadeem, have not been placed on record before the trial judge despite these statements being recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

It was on this ground that Grover urged the Court to pass an order directing the State of Uttar Pradesh to file a supplementary chargesheet to bring these statements on record which were recorded on May 15.

“Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of the court to the additional affidavit of the Superintendent of Police, District Hapur, U.P. filed yesterday i.e. 27th May, 2019. The attention of the Court has been drawn to the statements made in paragraph 6 of the said affidavit which would go to show that on 15th May, 2019, the statements of Saleem and Nadeem, the brothers of the deceased Quasim were recorded before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hapur, U.P., as per the provision of Section 164 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioners, on that basis, has submitted that the investigating agency should be directed to file a supplementary charge-sheet.”

The Court, however, said that having considered the matter, it was of the view that no such direction, as prayed for, ought to be passed.

The State of Uttar Pradesh submitted that the petitioners were not cooperating with the trial and sought dismissal of the writ petition. The Court, however, refused to dispose the petition on account of certain prayers remaining unadjudicated upon.

It said that the appropriate order to be passed at this stage would be to allow petitioners to draw the attention of the trial court to the statements of the brothers of the deceased. The trial court can then pass appropriate orders.

“Rather, the order that would be appropriate to be passed, at this stage, would be to permit the petitioners to draw the attention of the learned trial Judge to the aforesaid statements of the brothers of the deceased recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The petitioners may act accordingly, whereafter appropriate orders will be passed by the learned trial court.”

The petitioner also sought permission from the Court to bring on record additional documents and translations in relation to the case, which was allowed.

The Hapur lynching incident took place on June 18 this 2018, when a mob attacked meat trader Qasim Qureshi, and another man, Samaydeen, for allegedly killing a cow. Qureshi had succumbed to his injuries. Samaydeen and others later approached the Supreme Court, seeking a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into the incident. Brothers of Qasim, had in January this year prayed that their statements under Section 164 CrPC be recorded before a Judicial Magistrate.

Read the Order:

Bar and Bench - Indian Legal news