STRUCTURES OF VIOLENCE

213 | Structures of Violence
Information on the petition number [HCP 77/1999] was
sought through the Jammu and Kashmir Right to
Information Act, 2009 [RTI] on 16 February 2012.
Information was provided. Information on the
contempt petition was sought through RTI on 2 July
2012. Information was provided.
Mushtaq Ahmad Khan's family led a petition before
the High Court [habeas corpus petition, Section 491
Criminal Procedure Code, 1989 (CrPC) petition
no.15/1999]. Based on the High Court order of 7
November 2000, FIR no.2/2001 u/s 364 [Kidnapping /
Abducting to murder] Ranbir Penal Code, 1989 [RPC]
was led at the Batamaloo Police Station. The family of
Mushtaq Ahmad Khan also approached the State
Human Rights Commission [SHRC] which
recommended ex-gratia government relief of Rs.
1,00,000 on 2 June 2000 and the same was received
by the family. Information on the petition number was
sought through RTI on 2 July 2012. No information
was provided. Information was sought again on 4 April
2014.
Information on both the above listed FIR's was sought
through RTI on 5 May 2012. By communication dated
2 June 2012 from the Jammu and Kashmir Police,
information relating to FIR no. 66/2009 was provided
stating that the case was still under investigation. A
copy of FIR no.2/2001 was also provided. Further
information sought through RTI on 15 October 2013 on
both FIRs. By communication dated 22 April 2014 from
the Jammu and Kashmir Police a copy of the FIR
[66/2009] was provided along with a communication
from the Director General of Police, Jammu and
Kashmir, to the Inspector General of Police, Kashmir.
The communication from the Director General of
Police refers to certain clarications that were sought.
The communication states that responses to four
observations raised were satisfactorly answered. But,
that the explanations to two points were not answered
satisfactorly. The following para's forms the gist of this
communication:
“With regard to point no. 02 it is submitted that the
complicity of the accused persons on the testimony of
a single witness is good and may not require any
corroborative evidence from any other witness and as
such the non-implication of other persons who can be
made accused is unjustied on the sole ground that no
corroborative evidence is available against them.
Secondly, the I/O was under obligation to comply with
the provisions of Sec 164-A Cr. PC and delay in
recording statements, though bad in law, do not strike
at the root of the proceedings and cannot be disposed
with at any cost.
As such, the Investigating Agency may be directed to
collect some evidence against the other two ofcials
besides, getting the statements of material witnesses
recorded U/S 164-A Cr. PC before the competent
court, the le can then be processed for accord of
sanction.”
Further, in response to a statement by the Government
of Jammu and Kashmir on 5 March 2012 that over the
last three years, 444 FIRs had been led against the
armed forces and the police, a RTI was led seeking
information on these cases. On 2 June 2012
information was provided on FIR no.66/2009 that the
case was under investigation. By communication
dated 30 November 2013 it was stated that FIR 2/2001
was still under investigation. This position was reiterated
by communication dated 30 November 2013.
The family of Mushtaq Ahmad Dar also gave a
statement to the IPTK on 24 November 2011 and the
family of Mushtaq Ahmad Khan also gave an unsigned
statement to the IPTK on 27 February 2012.
In addition to the account of the family of Mushtaq
Ahmad Dar, the enquiry report of 18 July 2002 of the
Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar is
presently the only account that may be considered in a
case where an FIR was registered, on the intervention
of the court, approximately twelve years following the
abduction of the victim, and six years after the court
ordered the ling of the FIR. Unfortunately, not much
information [besides the account of the family] exists in
the case of Mushtaq Ahmad Khan. But, as both cases
are closely related, the below analysis would serve as
an indictment for the alleged perpetrators in both
cases.
The enquiry report found that it was “clearly
established” that the victim was “lifted” by the 20
Grenadiers camped at Boatman Colony, Bemina and
was in their custody. Further that as of the date of the
enquiry report the whereabouts of the victim was
unknown. The enquiry report continues to state that
“specically liability could not be xed because it is not
known as to which of the Army personnel had lifted
Mushtaq Ahmad Dar, though 20 Grenadiers is
responsible for having lifted Mushtaq Ahmad Dar”. The
enquiry report bases this conclusion on the witness
testimony heard, but it is unfortunate that the enquiry
report does not conrm certain other details.
Witness Haji Abdul Rashid Dar states that he
contacted Commanding Ofcer S. K. Malik “2-3” days
after the incident and was told by the Commanding
Ofcer that he would personally release Mushtaq
Ahmad Dar. Thereafter, the witness states that he
contacted the ofcer approximately ten times, but the
victim was not released. The witness also speaks of an
“army person”, Nazahar Mohammad, demanding Rs.
20,000 [which was subsequently returned], and the
witness speaks of meeting “Maj. Vishou” [whom the
Additional Sessions Judge, while summarizing the
evidence, refers to as “Maj. Vishu Jeet Singh”] who
“assured him that Mushtaq Ahmad will be released as
he [Mushtaq Ahmad] is not a militant”. This evidence
was not overturned or affected in any way in the crossexamination
that followed. In fact, elements of it were
corroborated by other witnesses. Witness Abdul
Rehim Bhat conrms that Haji Ab. Rashid contacted
army people. He also states, presumably after gaining
this information from others that “army people
admitted that Mushtaq Ahmad Dar is lying with them”.