Supreme Court asks Jharkhand High Court to expedite hearing in appeal in 2016 cattle-traders lynching case
In Jharkhand’s Latehar district, two persons were thrashed to death in March 2016. Their lynching triggered nationwide protests. In 2018, eight accused were convicted of murder.
The Supreme Court recently requested the judges of the Jharkhand High Court to decide the appeal against the conviction in the Jharkhand cattle traders lynching case. Reportedly, one Mazlum Ansari, 32, and Imteyaz Khan, 13, were hanged from a tree after they were beaten up in March 2016.
A bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice PS Narasimha was hearing a Special Leave Petition moved by one Md. Nijamuddin, the informant and one of the eye-witnesses in the case, through Advocate Talha Abdul Rahman.
The SLP was filed against one order dated April 13, 2022, vide which the Jharkhand High Court suspended the sentence awarded to three of the convicts and released them on bail, during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court.
The Trial Court, in December 2018, convicted a total of 8 men under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code finding them guilty of murdering two persons, including one thirteen-year-old boy. It was the prosecution's case the two deceased were thrashed to death. It was also submitted before the court that the accused persons had made threats of dire consequences against the adult deceased if he did not give up the business of cattle trading.
The Trial Court had sentenced the convicts to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 25,000 each. An appeal was filed before the High Court against the order of the Trial Court.
In the SLP before the Top Court, it was argued that the High Court virtually interfered with the conviction of the three convicts even though they had been convicted after a thorough examination of all facts.
The SLP stated that the High Court erred in consideration of factual aspects including alleged contradiction in testimonies, which the High Court ought not to have gone into at this stage.
It also contended that despite having been laid down in a plethora of cases by the Supreme Court that the FIR is not an encyclopedia of the entire case, the High Court, relying merely upon the FIR, passed the impugned order.
Therefore, alleging that the High Court granted the convicts bail without appreciating material aspects, testimonies, and evidences, while placing reliance only on the FIR, the petitioner sought Top Court's interference.
However, the Supreme Court refused to entertain the petition and dismissed the SLP while asking the High Court to decide the appeal expeditiously within a period of one year from the date of the order.
Case Title: MD. NIJAMUDDIN v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.