Lakhimpur violence: Rifle recovered from Union minister’s son Ashish Mishra was fired, say reports

A rifle belonging to Union minister Ajay Mishra’s son Ashish Mishra was discharged at some point, though it is unclear if it was fired on October 3 when violence erupted in Uttar Pradesh’s Lakhimpur Kheri district or another day, The Indian Express reported on Wednesday, citing a forensic analysis.

But, two other media reports said that weapon had been fired during the violence.

Eight people, including four protesting farmers, had been killed in the violence last month. Farmer bodies alleged that a vehicle belonging to Ashish Mishra had run over protestors. On October 9, Mishra was arrested.

The first information report filed by the police had said that Ashish Mishra had opened fire on the farmers. Thirteen arrests have been made in the case so far.

The police had seized weapons belonging to Ashish Mishra and three other accused persons. The four weapons were sent for testing to the Forensic Science Laboratory, The Indian Express reported.

“We have now received the report [from the test], which states that bullets were fired from three weapons, which belong to Ashish, Ankit, and Lateef,” an unidentified police officer told the newspaper. “We will submit the report to the court as evidence.”

The accused persons will have to prove that they did not fire their weapons in Lakhimpur Kheri on October 3, the officer added.

The police are waiting for the report from the forensic examination of the fourth weapon, according to the newspaper.

The Lakhimpur Kheri violence case has been taken up by the Supreme Court. The judges have repeatedly expressed dissatisfaction by the Uttar Pradesh government’s handling of the investigation.

At the last hearing in the case on November 8, the Supreme Court had criticised the government for not providing enough details in its status report on the police investigation.

Justice Surya Kant, who was part of the bench hearing the case, had said that the court was inclined to appoint a former judge of a different High Court to monitor the case. “Somehow, we are not confident of state judicial committee overseeing,” he had added.