04.10.2015 Views

STRUCTURES OF VIOLENCE

4cONo1kTN

4cONo1kTN

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

353| Structures of Violence<br />

The application sought that a proper murder case be<br />

registered against Major H.P.Singh, Company<br />

th<br />

Commander, 167 Infantry Battalion and against the<br />

Commanding Ofcer of same Battalion, Brigadier<br />

Surjit Singh, as they had killed Abdul Aziz Bhat by<br />

severe torture in custody as he was arrested by them.<br />

The 7 August 2012 communication from the Jammu<br />

and Kashmir Police states that this case was closed<br />

as not admitted but a nal report was not submitted.<br />

By communication dated 30 November 2013 from the<br />

Jammu and Kashmir Police a copy of the closure<br />

report was provided.<br />

The family of the victim approached the State Human<br />

Rights Commission [SHRC] on 14 July 1998 and a<br />

nal decision was delivered on 17 June 2008 and<br />

Rs.2,00,000 ex-gratia government relief and<br />

compassionate employment under SRO-43<br />

[Statutory Rules and Orders] were recommended.<br />

The SHRC arrived at its decision by considering<br />

reports from the police and testimony of witnesses.<br />

The SHRC received the report from Crime Branch<br />

Headquarters, Srinagar dated 21 December 2002<br />

which provided basic information on FIR no.140/1996<br />

and the written complaint made by the wife of Abdul<br />

Aziz Bhat. Further, a reference is made by the SHRC<br />

to submissions by the Crime Branch and the police [it<br />

is unclear whether these submissions were a part of<br />

the 21 December 2002 letter] that supported the<br />

version of events that Abdul Aziz Bhat started ring<br />

while taking the armed forces to a hideout.<br />

The testimony of witnesses Ghulam Ahmad Bhat and<br />

Mohammad Ramzan Bhat were also considered by<br />

the SHRC. The witnesses deposed that Abdul Aziz<br />

Bhat was picked up during the night on 26 and 27<br />

December 1996 and was tortured to death in custody<br />

following which his dead body was given to them<br />

through the Nishat Police Station. The witnesses have<br />

stated that during the period the people remained<br />

indoors and would not come out during night or in late<br />

hours because of a perception of threat.<br />

The report of the Additional Director General of Police<br />

[ADGP] dated 18 September 1998 submitted before<br />

the SHRC considered the contents of FIR 140/1996<br />

and concluded that the proper procedures before the<br />

disclosure were not followed and stated that the FIR<br />

was an attempt to cover up the custodial killing.<br />

Based on the above, the SHRC found that the case in<br />

favour of the family of Abdul Aziz Bhat was made out.<br />

Further that the other version of events was “highly<br />

unrealistic and devoid of logic”. As the wife of Abdul<br />

Aziz Bhat had made a clear statement and the ADGP<br />

also concluded that this was a case of custodial killing,<br />

the SHRC indictment appears sound. But, it must be<br />

mentioned that the testimony of the witnesses<br />

Ghulam Ahmad Bhat and Mohammad Ramzan Bhat<br />

do not provide much detail to the incident. Particularly,<br />

it is unclear on what basis they testied to the<br />

abduction.<br />

No information exists on what basis the Jammu and<br />

Kashmir Police closed the investigations in this case<br />

or on what basis the case was held to be not admitted.<br />

The nal reports would, by law, have to be judicially<br />

scrutinized and this was not done in this case.<br />

Further, the Jammu and Kashmir Police is also<br />

indicted by the fact that they only led a FIR with the<br />

victim family's version of events after the intervention<br />

of a court.<br />

The Ministry of Defence seems to have cared very<br />

little about the SHRC order, Jammu and Kashmir<br />

Police investigations or in instituting a process for<br />

delivering justice.<br />

The available documents do not suggest that even a<br />

Court-Martial was conducted in this case by the army.<br />

Case No. 88<br />

Victim Details<br />

1. Sikandar Ganai [Extra-Judicial Killing]<br />

2. Mohammad Ramzan [Extra-Judicial Killing]<br />

Occupation: Employee, Stone crusher,<br />

Humhama<br />

Son of: N.K [full name unavailable]<br />

Resident of: Bangal<br />

3. Mushtaq Ahmad Hajam [Extra-Judicial<br />

Killing]<br />

Son of: Mohammad Subhan Hajam,<br />

Resident of: Sumbal, Sonawari, Bandipora<br />

District<br />

4. Mohammad Assan Lone [Extra-Judicial<br />

Killing]<br />

Son of: Ghulam Qadir Lone<br />

Resident of: Chewrajpora, Pulwama District<br />

5. Mohammad Afzal Malik [Extra-Judicial<br />

Killing]<br />

Son of: Ghulam Mohiuddin/Mohammad Malik<br />

Resident of: Budgam<br />

Alleged Perpetrators<br />

rd<br />

1. Major Avtar Singh, 103 Battalion Territorial<br />

Army<br />

rd<br />

2. Havaldar Balbir Singh, 103 Battalion<br />

Territorial Army<br />

rd<br />

3. Dr. Sumon Singh, 103 Battalion Territorial<br />

Army<br />

Case Information

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!