STRUCTURES OF VIOLENCE

220 | Structures of Violence
Mohammad Amin for recovery of arms and
ammunition from University of Kashmir. Following
the recovery of arms and ammunition from this
location, and while on the way to Soura for further
recovery, the party that was accompanied by CRPF
personnel came under ring from militants at
Nowhatta. During this ring, the victim escaped.
First Information Report [FIR] no. 239/1997 u/s 307
[Attempt to murder], 224 Ranbir Penal Code, 1989
[RPC] and 7 [Prohibition of
acquisition/possession/manufacture/sale of
prohibited arms/ammunition]/27 [Punishment for
possessing arms etc. with intent to use them for
unlawful purpose] Arms Act, 1959 was led at the
n67
Soura Police Statio .Following the conclusion of
investigations, the nal report was produced in the
nd
court of the 2 Additional Munsif, Srinagar. By
communication dated 30 November 2013 from
Jammu and Kashmir Police a copy of the
chargesheet was provided. The High Court, in its
nal decision of 9 October 2003, disbelieved this
version based on the SHRC nal decision that
considered it to be fabricated. The High Court held
that a case was to be registered in the matter and
that compensation recommended by the SHRC be
paid to the family of the victim. The High Court
stated that the proper quantum of compensation as
per public law based on the facts and
circumstances would be Rs. 2,00,000 payable
within two months, but the Government of Jammu
and Kashmir could choose to pay the SHRC
recommended amount of Rs. 5,00,000. No specic
detailed reasoning is provided on how the High
Court arrived at the proper compensation amount.
Subsequent to the above proceedings, as per
media reports, a contempt petition was led in 2012.
According to the reports, in May 2012, the Principal
Secretary, Jammu and Kashmir Home Department,
submitted that on 9 April 2012, the Deputy
Commissioner, Srinagar had been asked to pay the
balance compensation of Rs. 3,00,000. Further, the
Director General of Police [DGP], Jammu and
Kashmir, had been asked to implement the decision
of the High Court and register a FIR in the case,
take it to its logical conclusion, and take
departmental action against the erring police
68
ofcials involved in the custodial disappearance .
It is unclear when the family of the victim received the
Rs. 2,00,000 compensation. Information on the
petition numbers was sought through the Jammu and
Kashmir Right to Information Act, 2009 [RTI] on 2 July
2012. Only information on OWP 263/2001 was
provided.
The family of the victim once again approached the
SHRC on 27 May 2008, on the sole issue of
compassionate employment under SRO-43
[Statutory Rules and Orders] that had yet to be
processed. The SHRC, based on an assurance from
the Government of Jammu and Kashmir that the
SRO-43 benets were being processed, disposed off
the application.
The main document for analysis in the instant case is
the SHRC nal decision of 3 April 2000. But, the
observations of the High Court in its nal decision of 9
October 2003 may be briey considered.
The High Court observed that:
“From the whole record an impression is fairly
gathered that registration of FIR No. 239/97 is with the
object of throwing a protective cover around the SOG
police personal involved in custodial disappearance
of Fayaz Ahmed Beigh to facilitate their escape from
legal consequences which they may have to bear
consequent upon 'disappearance' and 'not being
heard of after arrest' of said Fayaz Ahmed, once he
was taken in custody by the SOG Awantipora.”
The above observation provides further credibility to
the SHRC nal decision which may now be
considered. The SHRC decision begins with the
allegations of the family of the victim. Further, it is
stated that the father of the victim approached Ali
Mohammad Sagar, then Minister of Home, Jammu
and Kashmir, who ordered an investigation by the
Criminal Investigation Department [CID] of Jammu
and Kashmir Police. The CID report dated 31 October
1997 stated that there was no ambush at Nowhatta as
suggested in FIR no. 239/1997 led at Soura Police
Station. The decision also states that when the family
of the victim approached SP Hans Raj Parihar they
were informed that there was a demand of Rs.15, 000
by “some agency”. The money was not paid.
SP Hans Raj Parihar, SI Mohammad Amin, Head
Constable Ratan Chand, Constable Abdul Rashid
Trali contested the complaint before the SHRC. They
admitted that the victim had been arrested by the
SOG at Kadalbal, Pampore, on 9 September 1997.
Further, that under the orders of SP Hans Raj Parihar,
a party headed by SI Mohammad Amin, and based on
the disclosure of the victim, recovered arms and
ammunition at the “University Campus”. Further, that
on 10 September 1997 [though it is unclear whether
the search and recovery at the University of Kashmir
campus was also on the same day] the party,
comprising of 30 personnel, including SI Mohammad
Amin, Head Constable Ratan Chand, Constable
Abdul Rashid Trali of SOG and Inspector Sudershan
67 Information on this FIR was sought through the Jammu and Kashmir Right to Information Act, 2009 [RTI] on 2 July 2012. By
communication dated 7 August 2012 from the Jammu and Kashmir Police a copy of the FIR and investigation documents were provided
and it was stated that the chargesheet had been produced in a court of law u/s 512 [Record of evidence in absence of accused] Criminal
Procedure Code, 1989 [CrPC]. Further information sought through RTI on 15 October 2013.
68 Kashmir Global, http://www.kashmirglobal.com/2012/05/27/14-year-old-custodial-disappearance-of-k-university-cameraman.html, 27
May 2012.