Murder, witness intimidation, evading arrest: The many allegations against Ajay Mishra Teni
“Ajay Mishra alias Teni had enmity with my son Prabhat Gupta with respect to the recently held panchayat elections,” Santosh Gupta wrote in a complaint to the Tikunia police station in Uttar Pradesh’s Lakhimpur Kheri district, on 8 July 2000. Prabhat, also called Raju, was Santosh’s eldest son. Santosh wrote that Teni “shot my son on his temple” at a main road in “broad daylight” at 3 pm earlier that day in front of many people, including Sanjeev Gupta, one of Prabhat’s brothers. A man named Subhash then “shot my son between his stomach and chest. My eldest son fell and died on the spot.” Santosh wrote that Teni and three others then waved their guns in the air and said, “saala Raju bachne na paaye”—Bloody Raju shouldn’t make it out alive. Almost exactly twenty-one years later, on 7 July 2021, Teni was sworn in as a minister of state in the Bharatiya Janata Party government.
Three months later, Teni came into the spotlight when a convoy associated with him mowed down protesting farmers in Lakhimpur Kheri. Protesters present at the scene accused Teni’s son, Ashish Mishra, of leading the violence. While the state police filed a first-information report on the incident on 4 October, naming Ashish as an accused along with “15-20 unknown persons,” it took five days to arrest the minister’s son. Several stories emerged in which residents of Lakhimpur Kheri described both father and son as dabang—goons.
For Prabhat’s family, it was this reputation that led to Teni going scot free in the 2000 murder case. A police document based on testimonies by Santosh, Sanjeev and a third witness stated, “In addition to being a dabang—because of his terror and fear, nobody from the area is able to gather courage to say what’s right and the truth.” The police’s summary in the chargesheet said that the allegation of murder against the four accused in the case “was found to be true.” Teni evaded arrest for months before he finally received bail in June 2001, without spending a single night in jail. That year, the district government counsel wrote a letter to the district magistrate saying that the bail was “against the law and the judicial process” and the state should appeal against it. Teni was ultimately acquitted in March 2004. Appeals by the complainant and the state government challenging the acquittal remain pending in the Allahabad High Court.
The 61-year-old minister is from Banveer Pur village in Lakhimpur Kheri’s Nighasan block. Prabhat’s murder is not the first criminal allegation against him—in 1996, a history sheet was reportedly opened in his name at the Tikonia police station, which was closed after a few months.
The victim and the accused all lived closed to each other in Banveer Pur. “The spot where my brother was shot was 100–120 metres away from our house,” Rajiv Gupta, Prabhat’s younger brother who was 22 years old at the time of his death, told us. Rajiv said that Teni’s house was 25 meters away from their house and the incident took place right in front of another accused person’s house. Rajiv added that his house is merely 200–250 metres away from the spot where the convoy linked to Teni rammed through farmers this year.
Teni was threatened by Prabhat’s growing political influence, Prabhat’s family has alleged. Prabhat was a 29-year-old student leader at Lucknow University at the time of his death. “Apart from being a popular student leader of Lucknow University, my brother was also the state secretary of the Samajwadi Yuvjan Sabha”—the youth wing of the party—Rajiv told us. “He had filed nomination papers for the 2000 zila panchayat elections. Teni, who was with BJP and the vice chairman of the district cooperative bank, construed it to be a blow to his rapidly declining popularity and goodwill.” According to Rajiv, before the murder, the accused persons threatened Prabhat twice. “Teni indulged in heated arguments with my brother and threatened to kill him,” Rajeev said. He added that even Subhash had threatened Prabhat that he will call Teni and kill him.
Apart from Teni and Subhaash—also known as Maama—two others were also accused in the case: Rakesh alias Daalu and Shashi Bhushan alias Pinky. All four were booked for murder under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The chargesheet in the case was filed on 13 December 2000. The police document based on testimonies by Santosh, Sanjeev and another witness was titled “details of the investigation” and attached to the chargesheet. The document had comments similar to those made by Rajiv. It mentioned that “Raju becoming an office bearer in the Samajwadi Party and his rising image was leading to Ajay Mishra Teni’s image being adversely impacted and him losing his support base. To maintain his dominance, Prabhat Kumar Gupta alias was removed from the way and was murdered.”
The document alleged that Teni was influencing the witnesses in the case. “Affidavits given by the witnesses in support of Teni were given under his influence and by those who are weak,” the document alleged. “He is pressurising a few people into giving statements through affidavits as witnesses even though they were not present at the time of the incident.” Apart from being a BJP leader, Teni was known to be a close aide of the local MLA and a former minister in the Uttar Pradesh government, Ram Kumar Verma. The document added, “Mishra forced and manipulated witnesses. Isse sparsht hota hai ki Ajay Mishra aadi ke khilaaf koi vyakti apna muh nahi khol sakta hai.”—This demonstrates that no one can dare to raise their voice against Ajay Mishra and others.
The chargesheet stated that after reviewing documents, such as eyewitness statements, accused statements, post-mortem report and FIR, “it is known that the accused persons … shot Prabhat.” It added that “the allegation of killing and murder under section 302 of IPC was found to be true.” The chargesheet mentioned that “the allegation that affidavits were submitted under pressure by the accused was found to be true.” It added, “It is requested that the accused be punished as per the evidence.”
According to Prabhat’s family, not just witnesses, they were themselves threatened for following up on the case. On 24 October 2000, the chief secretary to the chief minister addressed wrote to the chief secretary of the home department about a letter that Rajiv had written four days earlier. Rajiv’s letter said that his family was facing “jaanmaal ka khatra”—danger to their life and property—as they were being threatened. The chief secretary asked the home department to immediately ensure effective investigation of the case and “provide complete protection to the family of Mr Gupta.”
Two instances of threats to Prabhat’s family were elaborated in a letter that Mohammad Azeez Siddiqui, the district government counsel of Lakhimpur Kheri at the time, wrote to the district magistrate on 2 August 2001. Siddiqui wrote that on 25 January 2001, two of Teni’s associates threatened “the life and property” of Sanjeev while he was going from a shop to his house. “Sanjeev filed a complaint at Tikunia police station against this,” Siddiqui’s letter added. “Santosh Gupta even received an inland letter threatening him to stop following up on the case or his entire family will be killed just like his son.” The letter mentioned that the accused had threatened witnesses. Siddiqui mentioned that on 24 February, Rakesh and his associates surrounded a witness “on gun point, made him put his thumb impression on a blank stamp paper and clicked a photo as well.” He added that even this witness lodged a complaint regarding the incident at the Tikunia police station.
In 2001, Santosh said his father filed a petition against the sessions judge of Lakhimpur Kheri and others accused in the case before the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court about the lack of action against Teni. In an order passed on 10 May that year, the court said, “It is argued that Opposite Party No. 3 is not being taken into custody on the ground that the file was not available and that the Opposite Party no. 3 has been using delaying tactics and seeking exemption to avoid being taken into custody.” While Santosh died in 2005, Rajiv told me that “Opposite Party Number 3” in the case referred to Teni. The high court’s order directed the chief judicial magistrate of Lakhimpur Kheri “to make the file available before himself and proceed in the matter in accordance with law and not to permit the delay in due process of law with respect to the appearance and taking into custody of opposite party no. 3.”
And yet, as Siddiqui wrote in his letter, despite being “the prime accused” in the case, Teni was not arrested for 11 months after Prabhat’s murder. “He kept evading arrest on one pretext or the other,” Siddiqui wrote. “The investigation officer asked the court to issue a non-bailable warrant under 82–83 CrPC”—Code of Criminal Procedure—“after which the judicial magistrate of Kheri on 27 February 2001 asked him to surrender before the court on 28 March 2001 or else it will initiate punitive proceedings against him.”
Teni did not appear before the court on 28 March, Siddiqui wrote. “His counsel asked the court to excuse him since he was unwell,” he mentioned. “But no strong action in line with the court’s previous direction was taken to arrest Teni.” The next hearing of the case was scheduled for 27 April. “But even on 27 April 2001, Ajay Mishra Teni did not surrender before the court.”
“Ajay Mishra time and again kept filing different writ petitions and invoking 482 of the CrPC to the Lucknow bench of the HC to and kept evading arrest,” Siddiqui wrote. “In connection to this, the high court even issued a notice against him for giving false statements—this is proven through documents.” Petitions seeking to quash an FIR are often filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
“He kept waiting for a time that suited him to file his bail plea and surrender,” Siddiqui wrote. “On 25 June 2001, when the district judge was on summer break, the accused Ajay Mishra presented a request for bail and to appear before the court of the judicial magistrate. And on the same day, he submitted a bail application in the district sessions court. As per my knowledge, the disposal of the bail petitions starts at 1 pm in the court of the judicial magistrate and in the district sessions court, the bail applications are disposed off before 12 pm. Even then, on the same day, how did the district session court listen to his bail plea?”
Siddiqui described what happened at the district court. “At 3 pm, the public prosecutor was called without any prior intimation to file his reply,” he wrote. “After dissent from the public prosecutor, he was given time for just one night by the additional district sessions judge and was asked to file his reply by 11 am the next day, on 26 June 2001. And the judge directed for Teni to not be sent to in jail but instead be sent to the district hospital.” The next day after the arguments, Teni secured bail. Siddiqui said that Teni, “like a VIP, walked out on bail without going to judicial custody.”
“In my opinion, this is against the law and the judicial process, which is not justified,” Siddiqui wrote. He requested the district magistrate to direct the public prosecutor to approach the high court for getting Teni’s bail cancelled. Rajeev told me that he also met authorities in the state government multiple times, requesting them to file an appeal on behalf of the state against bail, but to no avail.
A district sessions court acquitted Teni on 29 March 2004. We could not obtain a copy of the judgment. Rajiv shared portions of the state government’s appeal against the acquittal. This comprised a few points based on which the district session court acquitted Teni.
The appeal mentioned that according to the acquittal judgment, there were inconsistencies in statements given by the witnesses. The judgment noted that according to the complainant, Prabhat suffered from two gunshots, both from different weapons. However, the judgment said that one of the witnesses has said that both the shots were fired by Subhash. The document titled “details of investigation,” which was attached to the chargesheet, was based on the statements of this witness, along with that of Sanjeev and Santosh. The state’s appeal mentioned that this witness had become a “hostile witness” and “the sizes of both the wounds are different.”
The state appeal mentioned that the judgment pointed out that there are other “contradictions in the witness testimonies with respect to important points.” This included how according to Santosh, others at the scene of the crime said that the assailants fled on a motorcycle. However, three other witnesses—including Sanjeev—have said that the assailants ran on foot. According to the appeal, the judge in the matter deduced from this that either Sanjeev or another witness was lying. The appeal opposed this, arguing that everyone’s ability to perceive things is different. “If four people are present during one incident and four of them are asked about different events or details, definitely everyone’s details cannot be the same and will show contradictions,” the appeal mentioned.
Further, according to the state’s appeal, the acquittal judgment noted that the original FIR in the case omitted some details: whether someone had accompanied Prabhat on the day of the murder and that Sanjeev was Prabhat’s real brother. According to the appeal, the judgment mentioned that this was an attempt to bring the case in the complainant’s favour. The state appeal said that if each small thing is not mentioned in the FIR, it “doesn’t mean that the complainant’s story is doubtful.”
While the state government had appealed the acquittal, it was not without delay. The governor of the state instructed the advocate general to file the appeal—this was mentioned in a letter sent in early June 2004, by A K Srivastav, the special secretary of the Uttar Pradesh government, to the advocate general. Srivastav asked the advocate general to take immediate action in this regard and mentioned that the last date to file the appeal was 4 July. On 8 June 2004, SPS Solanki, the district magistrate of Lakhimpur Kheri, wrote to Dhiresh Kumar Awasthi, the district attorney, about the case against Teni along with another case, State vs Shaanti Devi. “You were told to file an appeal in the below mentioned cases,” Solanki wrote. “But you disregarded my orders, did not prepare and present the appeal because of which I had to get the appeal prepared by the senior prosecution officer. This action of yours seems like an obstruction administrative work.” Awasthi was told him “to hand over his charge with immediate effect to Yogesh Pandiya, the district attorney (criminal division).”
The state government filed an appeal against Teni’s acquittal in the Allahabad High Court on 18 June 2004. Santosh also filed a revision appeal in the court in the same year. Following this, the high court issued bailable warrants against all the accused including Teni.
Prabhat’s family alleged that Teni continued to threaten them for years, according to court documents. A high court order dated 11 September 2012 noted that Santosh’s counsel had submitted before the court that “one of the accused respondents is MLA and he has been extending threats.” Teni was only elected as an MLA in 2012.
Both the appeals are still pending before the court. According to the court website, on 12 March 2018, the high court reserved its judgment in the case filed by the state. However, online records show, that the judgment was not pronounced.
Rajeev told me he had also written a letter to the Prime Minister’s Office seeking action on the matter on 24 November 2000. While Rajiv did not have a copy of the letter, he showed me a receipt of the PMO’s reply. The reply mentioned that a letter by Rajeev was to be sent to the chief secretary of Uttar Pradesh government for suitable action. But, Rajiv said, “Such was his clout that Teni continued roaming freely.”
After the Lakhimpur Kheri incident in October 2021, Rajiv filed a petition before the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court seeking directions to the state government to provide a security cover of two gunners since the appeals against Teni were still pending. The petition mentioned that “the petitioner has been provided 1 gunner from the Office of S.P. Kheri on 16-09-2021 after the deposition of 10% expenditure.”
In September 2021, Teni had issued a warning for the protesting farmers in a speech at an event. A video of this went viral after the Lakhimpur Kheri incident in October. “Mend your ways or I will mend you. It will only take two minutes”—Teni had said in an event. “I am not just a minister or a parliamentarian. Those who know who I was before I was elected know that I never run away from a challenge.” Teni did not specify what he meant with this statement. Teni added, “The day I accept that challenge, they would be forced to run away from Pallia and Lakhimpur. Mark my words.”
Protesters present at the scene on 3 October alleged that Ashish, Teni’s son, and his men ran their SUVs over the farmers. Angered by the attack, farmers set fire to two of the vehicles that had been used to charge at them. In all, eight people died in the violence—four farmers, two BJP workers, a driver of one of the cars and a journalist.
The state police filed a FIR on the incident on 4 October, which named Ashish as an accused. The FIR has been registered under eight sections of the IPC, including Section 302 and Section 304-A, regarding death by negligence. On 7 October, the police issued a notice to Ashish under Section 160 of the CrPC, which deals with attendance of witnesses, and asked him to appear at the Tikunia police station the next day. Ashish did not turn up. The police then issued a similar notice on 8 October, and asked Ashish to present himself the next day. On 9 October, Ashish arrived for questioning at the Tikunia station, escorted by several police officials. He was then arrested.
Protesting farmers claimed that Ashish and others with him fired bullets, even shot dead one of the farmers. Four weapons were seized from the accused, including a rifle and a revolver belonging to Ashish Mishra, according to a report submitted by the special investigation team that is probing the Lakhimpur Kheri incident. “The Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report stated that there is evidence of firing on seized weapons during its examinations,” a district government counsel reportedly said.
However, Teni has claimed that his son was not present at the scene of the crime. “I’m not that weak. This is a conspiracy against my family,” Teni told India Today in an interview. When he was asked about being a history sheeter, Teni said, “This is all part of a plot against me. A superintendent of police posted in Lakhimpur Kheri district had maliciously filed cases against me. But after a high court order, all the cases were withdrawn. I have never been in a police lock-up nor have I ever been jailed. Opposition leaders started filing cases against me out of malice. I had to enter politics for the safety of my family. In 2005, I became a zilla panchayat member with record votes.”
Several people have alleged that Teni was involved in trade and smuggling from Nepal, which falls right next to the Nighasan block. However, no evidence of these claims has been furnished so far. The document based on witness testimonies that was attached to the 2000 chargesheet mentioned, “As per reliable information, due to the proximity of the country Nepal, he is involved in smuggling because of which his financial status was very good.” A senior academic, who has resided in Lakhimpur Kheri since 1980 and knew of Teni, spoke to us on the condition of anonymity. “They used to sell cheap spices brought from Nepal at much higher rates in India and would send urea and vegetables across the border,” the academic said. (Referring to the judgment in Prabhat’s murder case, the academic said, “People are keenly waiting for it.”)
The farmer leader Rakesh Tikait, who enjoys widespread support in western Uttar Pradesh, also made similar remarks on 26 October. During a speech in a programme to pay tributes to the farmers who died in the Lakhimpur Kheri violence, he said that Teni was a “sandalwood smuggler and used to smuggle goods to Nepal including black pepper, cloves and cardamom.” Tikait, too, said that Teni was a “goon” before he was inducted into the cabinet. He added, “Today, despite such a grave incident, nobody is ready to give statement against him. Such is his terror.”
The Caravan sent questions to Teni about the allegations against him on email and WhatsApp. He did not respond. We could not trace the others accused in the case.