STRUCTURES OF VIOLENCE

285| Structures of Violence
body of the victim was received from the BSF and it
had been stated by the BSF that the victim was a
Hizbul Mujahideen militant. The SHO had sought
th
information from the 107 Battalion BSF but had
th
received no response. In the meantime, the 107
Battalion BSF had been transferred from the Kashmir
valley and the investigations had now been taken up
th
with the 84 Battalion BSF which had replaced the
th
107 Battalion. On 29 June 1995, the High Court
passed a strong order that investigations be
completed in four months and that the police use all
available powers to do so. Subsequently the court
was informed that SI B.K.Singh had been found
involved in the crime and his whereabouts were being
traced. In December 1995, the court was informed
that SI B.K.Singh had died in an encounter and FIR
no. 89/1992 at the Nowhatta Police Station had been
led. On 22 October 1996, the High Court strongly
criticised the role of the police in investigations and
also stated that the role of other persons in the BSF
responsible for the crime should also be ascertained.
Eight years later, in November 2004, the Government
of Jammu and Kashmir submitted before the High
Court that the alleged perpetrators were responsible
for the crime. Further, that SI B.I.Singh was dead,
ADG K.K.Verma had retired from service and
Inspector Raas Behari Dutta was serving at the
Sector Headquarters, BSF, Kishan Ganj, North
Bengal. Appended was a 19 January 2004 letter from
the SHO, Soura Police Station that conrmed the
names of the three alleged perpetrators, and stated
that a chargesheet had been led, that sanction for
prosecution under AFSPA was required to be sought
and that the three persons must be arrested. On 30
November 2004 the High Court issued its nal
decision, found that there was prima facie evidence
against the alleged perpetrators, and stated that
sanction for prosecution should be sought.
The family of the victim led a contempt petition
[no.1/2007] on the issue of delay in seeking the
sanction for prosecution under AFSPA. During the
proceedings, a letter from the Ministry of Home Affairs
dated 12 November 2007 to the Jammu and Kashmir
Home Department, was produced which declined
sanction for ADG K.K.Verma and Inspector Raas
Behari Dutta. Following this, and in light of another
petition being led against the denial of sanction, and
seeking investigations as to whether SI B.I.Singh was
indeed dead [HCP167/2008], the contempt petition
was not pressed and was dismissed on 29 September
2009. Also brought on record was the denial of
sanction by the Ministry of Home Affairs on 12
November 2007 that stated that there was no
evidence against ADG K.K.Verma and Inspector
Raas Behari Dutta.
HCP167/2008 was led against the denial of sanction
and also sought that investigations be carried out on
whether SI B.K.Singh was indeed killed in an
encounter.
In response to HCP167/2008, the BSF stated that
while the victim was not arrested by the three alleged
perpetrators, he was arrested by the BSF on grounds
of him being an active militant. The BSF also stated
that the victim was questioned by SI B. K. Singh at the
“Far View Guest House” at about 5:30 pm and in the
evening he was put into a cell in Fair View Guest
House / Papa-II Interrogation Centre where he
complained of chest pain. On reaching the hospital,
he was declared as having been brought dead.
Further, the BSF states that “Ras Bihari Dutta” was
“responsible for the security of Far View Guest House”
but had no role in the incident. Further, that K. K.
Verma only “visited the spot”. The petition remains
pending. But, the High Court directed that the
question of sanction be re-considered on 20 February
2014. By communication dated 27 August 2014 [as
provided by Jammu and Kashmir police in response
to RTI on 23 January 2015] the Ministry of Home
Affairs once again declined sanction. It was stated
that there was no fresh evidence, PAPA-II was an
additional police lock up/police station as designation
by the government of Jammu and Kashmir and
therefore BSF did not do anything illegal by detaining
the victim there. The involvement of the accused in the
crime was not found.
Information on the petition numbers was sought
through the Jammu and Kashmir Right to Information
Act, 2009 [RTI] on 2 July 2012. Information was
provided.
Also on record is a letter dated 7 May 1993 from the
Superintendent of Police [SP], Srinagar, to the Deputy
Commissioner, Srinagar conrming that the victim
was not involved in any subversive activities.
The family of the victim received Rs.1,00,00 ex-gratia
government relief and compassionate employment
under SRO-43 [Statutory Rules and Orders].
As a preliminary point, it must be noted that a case in
which an FIR was led in 1992, the High Court passed
an order to seek sanction in 2004 and the sanction
was denied in 2007. Further, to date, it appears the
perpetrators of the crime have yet to be punished.
Further, the 19 January 2004 letter of the SHO of
Soura Police Station is curious as while it conrms
that a chargesheet had been led against the three
accused, it states that the three accused “may kindly
be made available in police station”. Notwithstanding
the negligence of the police authorities, it seems a
clear position of the Government of Jammu and
Kashmir that the three alleged perpetrators were
responsible for the crime.
In the face of the police investigations, the position of
the BSF, denying the role of all three ofcers in the
killing of the victim, would appear prima facie
untenable. This was also a position supported by the