STRUCTURES OF VIOLENCE

387| Structures of Violence
The communication of 10 December 2011 stated that
a chargesheet had been led in this case and sanction
for prosecution under AFSPA was sought and
awaited.
By further communication dated 9 July 2012 in
response to the RTI, it was stated that sanction for
prosecution under AFSPA was sought in this case on
30 November 2010.
The Ministry of Defence, in its afdavit before the High
Court of Jammu and Kashmir in 2009 on sanctions for
prosecution under AFSPA, stated in relation to this
case that it had been received on 3 July 2007 and was
under consideration.
The Ministry of Defence, in response to a RTI on 10
January 2012 on sanctions for prosecution, stated in
relation to this case that sanction had been denied.
Further, that: “the allegation is baseless and framed
with malade intention to tarnish image of the army”.
Further, Jammu and Kashmir Police provided through
RTI communication dated 23 May 2011 from Ministry
of Defence where sanction for prosecution was
declined. This communication refers to a letter from
the Government of Jammu and Kashmir, Home
Department on 29 December 2006. It was stated that
the victim was handed over to the Jammu and
Kashmir Police on 24 February 2000 in a t condition
and that the father of the victim later “submitted a
declaration” that the allegations of torture and injuries
to his son were false.
This case does not nd mention in the list of cases
furnished by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir
in response to a RTI on sanctions for prosecutions
under AFSPA on 6 September 2011. Also, the
communication of the Jammu and Kashmir Police of 9
July 2012 states that this case was sent on 30
November 2010 for seeking sanction for prosecution
under AFSPA. But, surprisingly, the Ministry of
Defence seems to have received the case on 3 July
2007, or 29 December 2006. It needs to be claried
how and from whom the Ministry of Defence received
this case.
Also, based on the information provided by the
Jammu and Kashmir Police, it needs to be
investigated why the Government of Jammu and
Kashmir and the police took 10 years to process the
case for sanction for prosecution under AFSPA.
The assertion by the Ministry of Defence that the
allegations were framed with mala de intention is a
sweeping comment on the investigations with no
proof and suggests that the army is at loggerheads
with the Jammu and Kashmir Police which results in
delay or denial of justice. This is further clear when the
Ministry of Defence seeks to transfer responsibility to
the police by stating that the victim was handed over in
a t condition.
Case No. 120
Victim Details
Identity not ascertained [Extra-Judicial Killing
(Custodial Killing)]
Alleged Perpetrators
1. Major Aman Yadav [Operational name:
Mushtaq Ahmad], 28 Rashtriya Ries [RR],
Army
Case Information
The Ministry of Defence, in response to information
sought through the Jammu and Kashmir Right to
Information Act, 2009 [RTI] on sanctions for
prosecution under the Armed Forces (Jammu and
Kashmir) Special Powers Act, 1990 [AFSPA], stated
on 10 January 2012 that on the intervening night of 4
and 5 March 2000 there was a death in custody.
First Information Report [FIR] no.30/2000 was led.
Sanction for prosecution under AFSPA was declined
on 15 March 2011. Further, it was stated that that:
“involvement of Major Aman Yadav is not even prima
facie established. The ofcer was not involved in the
incident and the same has been established by the
police investigation, incident report, seizure memo,
FIR lodged by 28 Rashtriya Ries and statement of
Captain Chhatwal”.
The Jammu and Kashmir Police investigations in the
case are not with the IPTK and therefore the decline of
sanction for prosecution under AFSPA cannot be
appropriately analyzed. But, it does appear
contradictory that the Ministry of Defence relies on the
police investigations to decline sanction when
presumably the Jammu and Kashmir Police only sent
the case to the Ministry of Defence after ascertaining
that the crime was committed by the alleged
perpetrator.
Further, it is noteworthy that it took the Jammu and
Kashmir Police and Government of Jammu and
Kashmir 10 years to investigate and process the case
for acquiring sanction for prosecution under AFSPA
which apparently helped the perpetrators in evading
justice.
Further, the available documents do not suggest
that even a Court-Martial was conducted in this
case by the army.