STRUCTURES OF VIOLENCE

402 | Structures of Violence
investigations and grant of relief from the authorities.
Both the alleged perpetrators were made parties to the
th
petition. The Union of India, the 59 Field Regiment
and the alleged perpetrators responded to the petition
on 24 August 2005 denying any role in the incident.
Further, they stated that in Section 164 [Power to
record statements and confessions] Criminal
Procedure Code, 1989 [CrPC] statements recorded
before the Pattan and Baramulla Magistrates,
witnesses had stated that they were forced to give
testimony against the army. But, on record, a
statement given by Fayaz Ahmad Bhat, a neighbour of
the victim, on 31 January 2001 before the Pattan
Magistrate, conrms the version of events as given by
the family of the victim. Similarly, a statement given by
Haneefa, mother of the victim, on 31 January 2001 to
the Pattan magistrate also conrms the abduction of
the victim and subsequent killing of the victim. Abdul
Majid Rather [Son of Ghulam Hassan Rather], a
neighbour, also gave a statement on the same date to
the Pattan Magistrate that once again conrms the
abduction and killing of the victim. Mohammad Sharief
Rather [son of Saifullah Rather], Mohammad Yousuf
Khan [son of Shahbaz Khan], also neighbours, conrm
the same details. Therefore, based on the documents
available on the record, the statement of the Union of
th
India, the 59 Field Army Regiment and the alleged
perpetrators on 24 August 2005 in relation to
statements before the Pattan and Baramulla
Magistrates, would appear to be incorrect [though no
statements before the Baramulla Magistrate are
available with the IPTK]. The Government of Jammu
and Kashmir and police authorities responded to the
th
petition and stated that the personnel of the 59 Field
Army Regiment were responsible for the abduction
and killing of the victim. It was also conrmed that the
victim was not involved in any anti-national activity.
The High Court gave its nal decision on this petition
on 16 February 2006 and directed investigations by
the police authorities, cooperation by the army, and
also directed the Deputy Commissioner, Baramulla for
relief and other benets to be given to the family of the
victim, if found eligible.
Subsequently, a contempt petition [no. 206/2006] was
led before the High Court against the nonimplementation
of the High Court decision of 16
February 2006. On 10 August 2006, after considering
a status report by the police, the High Court stated that
the Station House Ofcer [SHO] concerned with the
matter is “not proving effective in causing the presence
of the army personnel of the regiment and his party
and the said regiment is not cooperating with the
investigation of the case”. The court therefore ordered
that the investigation be transferred to a senior police
ofcer of the rank of Deputy Inspector General of
Police [DIG]. The court also sought a response from
the Deputy Commissioner, Baramulla [seemingly in
reference to the issue of relief and other benets]. On
23 December 2006 a status report on investigations
was submitted by the DIG in charge of the
investigations. The investigation concluded that the
th
victim was picked up and killed by personnel of the 59
Field Regiment, Batapora during interrogation. The
investigation further revealed that on that day two
other persons were picked up along with the victim:
Mohammad Maqbool Rather and Ashaq Hussain Mir.
All three were interrogated by Major Bhattachariya and
Mohammad Maqbool Rather and Ashaq Hussain Mir
state that serious injuries were caused to the victim
which resulted in his death. The investigation therefore
concludes against Major Bhattachariya but also states
that the investigation has been unable to nd the
names of the party who actually picked up the victim.
The investigation report states that a charge sheet has
been led against Major Bhattachariya. But, the report
states that sanction is being sought and it appears
from the wording of the report that the charge sheet
has yet to be physically placed before the respective
court. The contempt petition was dismissed on 6
September 2007 for want of prosecution.
Another contempt petition [no.411/2007] was led on
the issue of continued non-implementation of the
direction on the relief [as the Deputy Commissioner,
Baramulla had not led his response before the High
Court] and on the status of the sanction for prosecution
sought. Subsequently, Deputy Commissioner,
Baramulla submitted a response and stated that an
enquiry by the Additional District Magistrate,
Baramulla was conducted and based upon this report,
relief of Rs. 1,00,000 had been paid to the family on 15
January 2002, but that compassionate employment
under SRO-43 [Statutory Rules and Orders] were to
be provided by chronological order based on the year
of the event, and as the victims' death fell in the year
2001, it was yet to come up, but that a request for
relaxation on this time issue had been submitted and a
decision is awaited. The contempt petition was
dismissed based on the submissions of the Deputy
Commissioner, Baramulla.
Information on the petition numbers was sought
through the Jammu and Kashmir Right to Information
Act, 2009 [RTI] on 16 February 2012. Information was
provided. Information on petition number 206/2006
was sought again on 4 April 2014.
The National Human Rights Commission [NHRC] was
also approached by the family.
The submissions before the High Court of the Jammu
and Kashmir Police and the statements given to the
th
Pattan Magistrate unequivocally implicate the 59
Field Army Regiment and Major K. Bhattachariya. The
family of the victim, Abdul Majeed Khan, indicts
Captain Godekar. Nonetheless, based on information
available the alleged perpetrators do not appear to
have been punished.
It is noteworthy that despite the passage of 11 years no
progress appears to have taken place on the
investigations.
Further, the available documents do not suggest that
even a Court-Martial was conducted in this case by
the army.