STRUCTURES OF VIOLENCE

381| Structures of Violence
Kashmir, and the Director General of Police [DGP],
Jammu and Kashmir, to intervene and allow the
production of the alleged perpetrators before the
investigators.
The SHRC nal decision on 1 October 2007, along
with the proceedings in the High Court, may be
analysed as indictments against the alleged
perpetrators.
The Jammu and Kashmir Police reports before the
SHRC stated that an encounter took place on 20
September 1999, between personnel of the 5 RR and
militants. One militant, the victim, was killed in the
exchange of re. The SHRC heard witness testimony.
Witness Haji Mohammad Maqbool Lone, Lambardar
[Numberdar, de facto revenue authority in the village],
stated that the victim had been lifted by the army. But,
this witness, based on the summary in the SHRC
decision, appears to provide hearsay evidence only.
Two other witnesses, Chowkidar [Village guard]
Ghulam Rasool Lone and Aziz Bhat stated that the
victim was a surrendered militant, and his wife had
“illicit relations” with an Ikhwan and that was the cause
of his death. The SHRC based on the record before it
reached the conclusion that the victim was a
surrendered militant and at the time of his death an
employee in the Town Area Committee, Ganderbal.
The SHRC also found that the victim's wife did have
“some affairs” with Ghulam Mohammad Kaloo, who
then, with the “connivance of the Security Forces”,
kidnapped and killed the victim. The SHRC
disbelieved the version of events regarding an
encounter with militants as stated by Senior
Superintendent of Police [SSP] Crime and Additional
Director General of Police [ADGP], Criminal
Investigation Department [CID] as it stated that if an
encounter had taken place it was likely that there
would have been some injury to the security forces as
well. Further, the SHRC also pointed out that the dead
body of the victim should have been handed over to
the police.
The numerous compliance reports led by the Jammu
and Kashmir Police before the High Court may also be
considered for the purposes of analysis. Compliance
report dated 3 March 2010 stated that the body of the
victim was exhumed on 30 September 1999 by the
orders of the District Magistrate, Srinagar, in the
st
presence of the Tehsildar [Executive Magistrate 1
Class], Ganderbal and others. Further, that the case
was closed by declaring the perpetrators as untraced
on 28 December 1999, but reopened under the Crime
Branch on 25 April 2005. This compliance report also
conrms that the victim was a surrendered, and not an
active, militant. Compliance report 2 June 2010 stated
that the Crime Branch visited the 5 RR Camp at
Doderhama, Ganderbal and met with Commanding
Ofcers Colonel A.K. Botail and Lieutenant Colonel
Joshi. On seeking information with regard to the
operation that formed the subject matter of the FIR,
the Crime Branch was informed that relevant records
for the period were not available as the operation had
taken place many years back. Nonetheless, the
Crime Branch was informed that the operation was an
ambush operation. Compliance report of 2 July 2010
conrmed the involvement of Ghulam Mohammad
Kaloo in the abduction and killing of the victim. This
was based on eye-witness testimony recorded during
the investigations. But, the report stated that despite
strenuous efforts Ghulam Mohammad Kaloo was yet
to be arrested.
Further, based on the investigations conducted, the
offences in the original FIR were omitted and sections
364 [Kidnapping/Abducting to murder], 302 [Murder],
120-B [Criminal Conspiracy] Ranbir Penal Code,
1989 [RPC] were considered proved against Ghulam
Mohammad Kaloo and unidentied army personnel of
the 5 RR, Doderhama, Ganderbal. In its subsequent,
undated report, the Crime Branch stated that it had
been informed by the 5 RR Camp, Ganderbal, that
Ghulam Mohammad Kaloo was not associated with
them. Further, that the Inspector General of Police
[IGP], Crime had written to the Commandant, 31 Sub
Area, to cause the appearance of Major S. Sehgal,
Lance Naik Vikram Singh and Constable Vinod
Kumar before the Crime Branch at the earliest. In a
subsequent undated status report [but presumably of
April 2011], the Crime Branch stated that the 5 RR unit
had been “enthusiastically instrumental in getting the
case closed as untraced by Police Station Ganderbal”
in the initial proceedings of the case.
Another status report of the Crime Branch, undated
once again but presumably around September 2011,
conrms that Major S. Sehgal, Lance Naik Vikram
Singh and Constable Vinod Kumar were main
accused in this case along with Ghulam Mohammad
Kaloo.
Also on record is the order of the Chief Judicial
Magistrate [CJM], Srinagar of 31 May 2011 where the
CJM stated that there was enough material on record
to disclose the involvement of Major S. Sehgal, Lance
Naik Vikram Singh and Constable [Sepoy] Vinod
Kumar in the crime and a notice was served on the
Commanding Ofcer of the alleged perpetrators to
produce the alleged perpetrators before the
investigators. The armed forces therefore appear to
be not cooperating with the investigations in an
attempt to evade justice and shield the alleged
perpetrators.
The nal point to be considered would be the status
report led before the High Court by the Jammu and
Kashmir Home Department[the date of this status
report is unclear but it would appear to be around
September 2010].
While on one hand the Crime Branch appears to have
found the victim to have been a surrendered militant
only, the Home Department, in the context of
relief/compensation, nds the victim to have been
actively involved in militancy. This contradiction is
clearly unfortunate and serves as an example of the