STRUCTURES OF VIOLENCE

eferred to].
- The contention of the Government of Jammu
and Kashmir in response to the contempt petition
led before the High Court that they had not
received the 4 February 2002 order, and therefore
not acted upon it, for more than two years is most
unfortunate and unreasonable.
The SHRC based its 14 July 2001 order on
submissions made by the parties and witnesses
presented before the Commission. The Additional
Director General of Police [ADGP], Criminal
Investigations Department [CID], Jammu and
Kashmir, stated that the two victims were summoned
by the Pampore Police Station on 23 November 1997
for questioning, handed over to the SOG, Camp
Lethpora, and released on the same day. Two
persons – Jan Mohammad Rather and Ghulam
Mohammad Ganai - witnessed the release. The
respondents took a similar position. It was further
stated that Selection Grade Constable Gansham
took the victim to the SOG Camp at Lethpora, which
was headed by Inspector Pritam Singh. The
questioning was related to a killing of a General
Manager of a cement factory at Khrew who was shot
dead by militants.
Based on the above submissions, the SHRC rst
stated that the taking into custody of the two victims
by the Pampore Police Station was not in dispute.
The SHRC than proceeded to consider the issue of
the release of the victims. It is unfortunate that the
SHRC did not, at this stage, highlight the differences
in the versions of the families of the victims and the
police on the issue of taking into custody of the
victims. While the police appear to suggest that the
victims were taken into custody on the same day [23
November 1997] the families of the victim have a
different version, as highlighted above.
Nonetheless, the SHRC proceeded to consider the
issue of the release of the victim. The SHRC found
that “…it cannot be said that the respondents have
been in a position to discharge the onus of proving
that Bashir Ahmad Wani and Bashir Ahmad Bhat
were released by the SOG namely Pritam Singh at
Lethpora SOG Camp.”
The SHRC found that the evidence of the witnesses
on the release were rendered doubtful by the
testimony of “one of the most respectable and
responsible citizens namely Malik Mohi-ud-din, exspeaker
[of the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative
Assembly] and an advocate”, a neighbor of Jan
Mohammad Rather and Ghulam Mohammad Ganai.
Jan Mohammad Rather and Ghulam Mohammad
Ganai had also worked for Malik Mohi-ud-Din. Malik
Mohi-ud-Din testied that both these persons were
aligned with the armed forces and had a poor
reputation in the area. Further, they were said to be
persons who got children of well-off people arrested
and then released for huge sums of money from the
parents of the children.
224 | Structures of Violence
Further, the SHRC found other reasons to disbelieve
the evidence of the witnesses. Ghulam Mohammad
Ganai testied that Inspector Pritam Singh had
released the two victims on his request. But, he also
stated, contradictorily, that alleged perpetrator 1 did
not know him and in fact he, the witness, knew
Inspector Pritam Singh “by face”.
The SHRC also considered the testimony of Khazir
Mohammad, brother of Ghulam Nabi Wani, to
contradict the testimony of Ghulam Mohammad
72
Ganai .
Khazir Mohammad states that Ghulam Mohammad
Ganai did not tell the SOG personnel that the two
victims were innocent and should be released.
Further, the witness states that the victims were not
released in his presence.
The SHRC states the following in relation to Khazir
Mohammad's testimony: “He has stated that SOG
people were writing something on a paper which was
signed by him and his companion (Ghulam
Mohammad Ganai). They did not know where those
boys had gone”. The SHRC also stated that
“Moreover, the so called personal bond alleged to
have been executed by the boys which is on the le is
only with regard to one of the boys namely Bashir
Ahmad Wani. This too is a photocopy and has not
been put to the witnesses as required…”
The SHRC therefore concluded that it could not be
conclusively stated that the victims had been
released and that an investigation was necessary to
“x the responsibility on the ofcer, ofcials of the
Police manning the Police Station Pampore and the
SOG Camp Lethpora in No. 1997”.
The story regarding the release of the victim has been
discredited by the SHRC enquiry. The witnesses in
favor of the alleged perpetrators have produced
inconsistent and contradictory evidence.
Based on the record available in this case and the
testimony of Malik Mohi-ud-Din, it is clear that the
armed forces and their civilian extensions have
facilitated the practice of illegal detentions and
unrecorded arrest and “release” of victims which
leads to an unaccountable detention followed by
torture, disappearance, extra-judicial executions,
fake encounters and sometimes release of victims in
return for money.
The SHRC decision, while conrming the police
custody of the victims, and dismissing the release of
the victims, serves as a clear indictment of the alleged
perpetrators in the instant case.
Also of concern is that the police before the SHRC and
High Court have not produced the formal records of
the arrest and hand over of the victims to the SOG.
Neither have formal release orders of the victims been
released.
72 It is uncertain what role Khazir Mohammad played in the events in question. The discussion of his testimony would suggest that he was
one of the eye-witnesses to the release of the victim. But, in earlier parts of the SHRC order, reference is made to Jan Mohammad
Rather and Ghulam Mohammad Ganai.