STRUCTURES OF VIOLENCE

418 | Structures of Violence
was apprehended or taken for interrogation by 19 RR
for any involvement whatsoever kind was found
involved he should have been handed over by the 19
RR as per the requirements of law and the judgment of
the Apex Court as well Hon'ble High Court of the State
to the local police…”.
The SHRC was therefore rst critical of the manner in
which the victim had been handled by the 19 RR. The
SHRC then, relying on the police investigations,
conrmed the innocence of the victim. The SHRC then
considered the responsibility of the three units: 19 RR,
34 RR and SOG, for the torture of the victim and stated
that “all these units namely 19 RR, 34 RR and SOG
Magam are responsible for this…” The SHRC then
issued recommendations on ex-gratia relief and SRO-
43 benets and that the investigation against the
culprits must be expedited.
The above record: from the police investigations, on
both FIR's, and the indictment of the SHRC suggests a
strong case against the 19 RR, 34 RR and the SOG,
Magam. But, the Ministry of Defence declined sanction
against the two 19 RR ofcers named above. The
Ministry of Defence appears to blame the police by
suggesting that the victim was in their custody at the
time of the death of the victim. But, both the family and
the police clearly suggest that the victim arrived in
police custody in an injured condition, apparently
tortured by the personnel of the 19 RR, 34 RR and the
SOG, Magam. While, with records presently available
[which does not include the charge sheet against the
ofcers] it would be impossible to comment on the guilt
or the innocence of the two specic ofcers, but clear
responsibility needs to xed on specic persons, and
most importantly, responsibility needs to be xed on all
three units involved in this case and not just the 19 RR.
The Ministry of Defence by declining sanction for
prosecution under AFSPA effectively endorses the
crimes perpetrated, which do not appear to have taken
place in a bona de military operation. Also, based on
the record, the involvement of SOG of Jammu and
Kashmir Police, based at Magam, appears to have not
been considered in the investigations conducted by
the Jammu and Kashmir Police. It was possible for the
police to investigate and then prosecute the culpable
SOG personnel involved [particularly the In-charge
SOG, Magam] as the SOG is not covered by AFSPA.
The approach of the Ministry of Defence and the police
is that of conveniently blaming each other without
actually carrying out an impartial investigation which
could have resulted in prosecution of the accused from
both the police and the army.
The refuge of the blame game appears to only help the
perpetrators. The police shields it personnel by not
carrying out thorough investigations, while the Ministry
of Defence does so by arbitrarily declining sanction.
Further, the available documents do not suggest that
even a Court-Martial was conducted in this case by the
army.
Case No. 148
Victim Details
Khadam Hussain [Abduction and Extra-Judicial
Killing]
Spouse: Gulzar Bi
Resident of: Village Dehri Debsi, Mendhar, Poonch
District
Mohammad Rashid [Extra-Judicial Killing]
Spouse: Sakeena Bi
Resident of: Village Dehri Debsi, Mendhar, Poonch
District
Mohammad Riyaz [Extra-Judicial Killing]
Spouse: Shamim Akhter
Resident of: Village Dehri Debsi, Mendhar, Poonch
District
Alleged Perpetrators
th
1. Captain Naresh, NCA 7 JAT Regiment, Army
2. Lance Naik [Lance Corporal] Pardeep Kumar,
th
NCA 7 JAT Regiment, Army
3. Lance Naik [Lance Corporal] Roshan Kumar,
th
NCA 7 JAT Regiment, Army
th
4. Sepoy Master Veer, NCA 7 JAT Regiment,
Army
t h
5. Sepoy Rajinder Kumar, NCA 7 JAT
Regiment, Army
th
6. Havaldar Ram Niwas, NCA 7 JAT Regiment,
Army
th
7. Havaldar Prithvi, NCA 7 JAT Regiment, Army
Case Information
On the intervening night of 28 and 29 June 2002,
Khadam Hussain was abducted by personnel of the
th
NCA 7 JAT Regiment, Army.
Subsequently, Mohammad Rashid and Mohammad
Riyaz, who sought to get Khadam Hussain released,
were also killed along with Khadam Hussain.
First Information Report [FIR] no.77/2002 u/s 302
[Murder] Ranbir Penal Code, 1989 [RPC] was led.
The case was chargesheeted against the alleged
perpetrators but no information exists on whether the
case was transferred to the army Court-Martial
process or the District and Sessions Judge, Poonch.
The State Human Rights Commission [SHRC] was
approached by the families of the victims, and based
on a report of the Senior Superintendent of Police
[SSP], Poonch dated 28 January 2008, which
conrmed the abduction, killing and the role of the
alleged perpetrators, the SHRC recommended
Rs.2,00,000 ex-gratia government relief for the next of
kin of each of the victims.
No information exists on the present status of the
prosecution of the alleged perpetrators.
But, the available documents do not suggest that a
Court-Martial was conducted in this case by the army.