Sign In
By signing in or creating an account, you agree with Associated Broadcasting Company's Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.
By signing in or creating an account, you agree with Associated Broadcasting Company's Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.
New Delhi: A Fast Track Court in UP's Gautam Budh Nagar on Tuesday rejected the Uttar Pradesh government's plea seeking withdrawal of the case registered against accused in Mohammad Akhlaq lynching case.
Terming the prosecution's application for withdrawal as irrelevant and baseless, the Surajpur court dismissed it. The trial against the accused will continue. Counsel for the victim's family, Yusuf Saifi, said that justice had been delivered to the victim's side. He said the next hearing in the case is scheduled for January 6. The court has directed that the trial be conducted on a day-to-day basis.Fifty-two-year-old Mohammad Akhlaq, a resident of Dadri in Greater Noida, was beaten to death by a mob in 2015 over allegations of storing beef at his home. The police had arrested 18 accused in the case, including three juveniles.
The Uttar Pradesh government had filed a plea in November seeking withdrawal of prosecution against the accused in the lynching case. The hearing on the government's plea was held on Tuesday, during which the government was represented by the public prosecutor. The court observed that under Section 321, the public prosecutor had not cited any facts or grounds that could be considered. Charges have already been framed and a chargesheet has been filed. Taking all these factors into account, the court dismissed the government's plea as baseless and lacking in substance.
Section 321 of the CrPC provides that a Public Prosecutor or an Assistant Public Prosecutor may, with the consent of the court, apply for withdrawal of a case. The court's consent is mandatory in such matters. Under Section 321, the court has the authority to decide whether the prosecutor's request to withdraw the case is justified and whether it would result in any miscarriage of justice. Meanwhile, Akhlaq's wife has also filed a petition in the high court seeking cancellation of government and administrative orders related to the withdrawal application.
In its application, the prosecution stated that witnesses' statements were recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC, in which the number of accused was mentioned as ten. These statements were recorded during the investigation on October 13, 2015. The prosecution witnesses did not name any of the accused.
Highlighting alleged inconsistencies in the witnesses' statements, the prosecution's plea said that there were changes in the number of accused mentioned by the witnesses. It further stated that both the prosecution witnesses and the accused belong to the same village. Despite being from the same village, the complainant and other witnesses changed the number of accused in their statements.
