STRUCTURES OF VIOLENCE

174 | Structures of Violence
that in the month of January 1992, the personnel
of the Dogra Regiment took into custody “Ayoob
Khan, Majid and Nazir Gujjar”. “After some time”,
Ayoob and Majid were released but the Nazir
Ahmad Gojjar's whereabouts have not been
known to date. The witness was cross-examined
but no damage was done to his testimony.
- Witness Mohammad Yousuf Gujjar stated
that in the month of January 1992 the army took
three persons during a crack down at Malangam
village: Majid, Ayoob and Nazir Gojjar. R.P. Singh
and R.D. Singh of the Dogra Regiment of the
army were responsible for this. Majid and Ayoob
were released from the Jammu jail one month
after their arrest but the Nazir Ahmad Gojjar's
whereabouts have not been known to date.
- Witness Zaitoona stated that “about three
years back” [it is uncertain when the testimony of
the witness was given] the army during a
crackdown arrested her son, Nazir Ahmad Gojjar,
whose whereabouts are not known to date. R.P.
Singh and R.D. Singh were the ofcers who
arrested her son along with two other persons.
Based on the above testimony, the judicial inquiry
concluded that it had been established that in January
1992, the Dogra Regiment of the army, headed by
R.D. Singh and R.P. Singh, during a crackdown at the
Malangam village, arrested Ayoob, Majid and Nazir
Gojjar and took them to “Chiternar Camp” and
thereafter at some time Ayoob and Majid were
released. The judicial inquiry concluded that it was a
“clear case” of custodial disappearance and directed
that a case be registered against the Commanding
Ofcer of the Dogra Regiment and R. P. Singh and
R.D. Singh. While the inquiry report clearly
establishes the disappearance of the victim and the
role of the Dogra Regiment of the army, and
specically R.P. Singh and R.D. Singh, a few
comments must be made:
- The names of the two other persons arrested
along with Nazir Ahmad Gojjar vary slightly in the
different accounts but this appears not to be a
substantive issue as it seems clear across the
board that “Majid and Ayoob” were arrested along
with Nazir Ahmad Gojjar.
- Of greater ambiguity is the issue of when the
two boys were released. While the family in the
statement to the IPTK, states they were released
after four months, Mohammad Yousuf Gojjar
states it was one month. Ayoob Khan states he
and his brother were released “in the evening” but
it is not clear which evening and when. This
discrepancy might well be a substantive one.
- The role of the Commanding Ofcer,
Brigadier V.K. Sharma, in the incident is
admittedly limited. While it cannot be ruled out
that he would possibly have had knowledge of the
incident, and would therefore bear the
responsibility for not intervening, the evidence is
too limited presently to make that conclusion.
The nal issue to be considered would be that of the
sanction for prosecution under AFSPA. Sanction for
prosecution was declined on 4 April 2002 for the
following reasons:
1. That out of four witnesses before the District
and Sessions Judge, Baramulla only one,
Mohammad Yousuf Gujjar, has named Major
R.D. Singh and Major R.P. Singh, and so
prosecution case is not convincing.
2. That there are contradictions in the statement
of the two witnesses about the arrest and
release. Ayub Khan deposed that his brothers
were released the same evening but
Mohammad Yousuf Gujar said that he and his
brother were released after a month from
Jammu jail.
3. No witnesses blamed Colonel (now
Brigadier) V.K. Sharma. He was named being
the C.O of unit and on presumption of
involvement, otherwise there was no
evidence against him.
4. The Army ofcers denied on oath the arrest of
individuals on 26 January 1992 or any other
day and that they were not present in the unit
during that period. In fact Major R.D. Singh
was on annual leave for thirty days from 7
January 1992 to 5 February 1992 and Major
R.P. Singh on casual leave of fourteen days
from 22 January 1992 to 4 February 1992.
5. It is on record that the Lambardar
[Numberdar, de facto revenue authority in the
village, the family of the victim stated to the
IPTK that his name was Mohammad Abdullah
Sheikh]/ Sarpanch [the family of the victim
stated to the IPTK that his name was Maawali
Chauhan]of Malangam village certied on 25
February 2000 (witnessed by four prominent
residents of the village) that the personnel of
Dogra Regiment had not harassed or ill
treated any person of the village. Nor was any
man/ woman killed.
6. The grant of sanction to prosecute the Army
ofcers is not justied based on available
records and nor would it be in public interest.
The prosecution of ofcers will undermine the
morale, discipline, condence and motivation
of troops deployed in the sector.
The above reasons for the denial of prosecution
sanction need to be analyzed one by one. The rst
reason is a misreading of the inquiry report. In addition
to Mohammad Yousuf Gojjar, the mother of Nazir
Ahmad Gojjar, Zaitoona, also names R.P. Singh and
R.D. Singh. The second reason is more substantive
as already stated above. But, it may be mentioned
that Ayoob Khan's testimony, while referring to being
released in the evening, does not state that he and his
brother were released on the “same” evening. But,
clearly, there is ambiguity caused by his evidence.
The third reason has been commented upon above.
To establish the role of the Commanding Ofcer,
investigations would need to be carried. Without