STRUCTURES OF VIOLENCE

398 | Structures of Violence
resisted these threats.
The family of Mehrajuddin Khanday received
Rs.1,00,000 ex-gratia government relief and
compassionate employment under SRO-43 [Statutory
Rules and Orders].
The family of Mehrajuddin Khanday gave a statement
to the IPTK on 2 February 2012.
First Information Report [FIR] no. 18/2001 u/s 302
[Murder] Ranbir Penal Code, 1989 [RPC] and 7
[Prohibition of acquisition / possession /
manufacture/sale of prohibited arms / ammunition] /
25 [Punishment for certain offences] Arms Act, 1959
was led at the Anantnag Police Station on 12
January 2001 that an unidentied body was found in
110
Hutmura forest with bullet injuries . By
communication dated 14 May 2012 from the Jammu
and Kashmir Police information was provided that
the case was chargesheeted but sanction for
prosecution under the Armed Forces (Jammu and
Kashmir) Special Powers Act, 1990 [AFSPA] against
Major A.K. Morea was declined. A copy of the FIR
was provided on 21 May 2012. By further
communication dated 9 July 2012 from the Jammu
and Kashmir Police, a copy of the 23 February 2009
decline of sanction for prosecution under AFSPA
was provided. But, communication dated 16
November 2013 from the Jammu and Kashmir
Police, while mentioning that the case was “sent” for
sanction, does not mention the decline of sanction. A
similar position is taken in communication dated 16
May 2014 where the following is stated [though
written as 118/2001, it is presumably information
related to this FIR]: “The investigation of these cases
stands closed as challaned. The CD les along with
relevant documents and evidence both oral and
documentary stand submitted to concerned quarters
for accord of sanction to prosecute or otherwise, the
case is under investigation and as such, it comes
under the purview of section 6(b) of Jammu and
Kashmir Right to Information Act, 2009”.
This letter from the Ministry of Defence to the Jammu
and Kashmir Home Department, states that the
allegations against the alleged perpetrator are “totally
false”. The letter states that the “killing of Jehangir
Maulvi was a result of information given by Meraj-ud-
Din Khandey”. “His visit to the Company post would
have been observed by the subversive elements of
village and could have misconstrued the visit
otherwise”. The victim was sent back home on 30
December 2000 at 1:00 pm. “Terrorists and Over
Ground Workers have made a desperate attempt to
malign the ofcers and tarnish the image of the Army”.
On 26 May 2001, the Senior Superintendent of Police
[SSP], Anantnag wrote a letter to the Deputy
Commissioner [DC], Anantnag. While stating that
investigations were ongoing, the letter states that the
killing was by unknown militants, but also that the
Mehrajuddin Khanday was not afliated with any
banned outt.
The family of Mehrajuddin Khanday led a petition was
led before the High Court [Original Writ Petition
(OWP) 54/2001] seeking a judicially monitored speedy
investigation. The army accepted that Mehrajuddin
Khanday was called to a post referred to as “Chak
Ishar Dass” on 30 December 2000 but was
subsequently released. Further, it was also accepted
that Mehrajuddin Khanday was arrested on 10
November 2000 based on “information from
intelligence agencies” but was released on the same
day.
On 7 October 2003, the High Court was informed that
the investigation in the case was complete and
sanction for prosecution under AFSPA was being
awaited before the submission of the chargesheet
before the court. Based on this, the High Court sought
information on the progress of sanction for prosecution
under AFSPA.
On two further occasions, 21 February 2004 and 11
June 2004, the High Court continued to seek
information on the situation of the sanction for
prosecution sought under AFSPA. But, on 26 July
2004, with no developments on the issue of sanction
for prosecution under AFSPA, the High Court
dismissed the petition as being infructuous as
111
investigations being completed .
The Ministry of Defence, in its afdavit before the High
Court in 2009 on sanctions for prosecution under
AFSPA, stated in relation to this case that sanction
was declined vide order dated 23 February 2009.
The Government of Jammu and Kashmir, in response
to information sought through the Jammu and Kashmir
Right to Information Act, 2009 [RTI] on sanctions for
prosecution under AFSPA, stated on 6 September
2011 in relation to this case that sanction was declined
on 23 February 2009.
The Ministry of Defence, in response to a RTI on 10
January 2012 on sanctions for prosecution under
AFSPA, stated in relation to this case that sanction
was declined on 23 February 2009. Further, that:
“ofcer not involved in killing. Attempt made by
terrorists and sympathizers to malign the ofcer and
tarnish the image of Army”.
There are certain discrepancies in the date of the
event and the name of the alleged perpetrator.
While the Ministry of Defence and Government of
Jammu and Kashmir sanction for prosecution under
110 Information on this FIR was sought through the Jammu and Kashmir Right to Information Act, 2009 [RTI] on 7 October 2011. Further
information sought through RTI on 15 October 2013.
111 Information on the petition numbers was sought through RTI on 16 February 2012. Information was provided.