STRUCTURES OF VIOLENCE

450 | Structures of Violence
CRPF, Satpal Singh, slapped the boys. Subsequently,
they were allowed to proceed, but were stopped and
checked by the CRPF on two further occasions on the
same road. Following the third occasion of interacting
with the CRPF, Constable Anil Ramachari of the CRPF
red at the victim and his friend as they rode away on
their motorbike. The victim died as a result of the
shooting. While there were eye-witnesses to the
event, the eye-witnesses did not identify Constable
Anil Ramachari during the identication parade before
the police. The family believes this was due to fear of
reprisals against them.
The family of Abdul Qayoom Lone also states that
persons from the CRPF had offered the family money
to compromise on the case, which they refused to do.
First Information Report [FIR] no. 275/2007 was led
at the Sopore Police Station u/s 302 [Murder], 307
[Attempt to murder] Ranbir Penal Code, 1989 [RPC]
163
on 25 August 2007 .
The family of Abdul Qayoom Lone states that during
the identication parade before the Executive
Magistrate [Tehsildar, Sopore] the eye-witnesses
identied Sepoy Satpal Singh but not Constable Anil
Ramachari. The family of the victim states that this was
due to the witnesses being afraid and being harassed.
Further, statements were made by the eye-witnesses
before the District and Sessions Judge, Baramulla.
The family of Abdul Qayoom Lone led a petition
before the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir [Original
Writ Petition (OWP) 918/2007], seeking that the
investigations in the case be completed and that the
th
Union of India, the 179 Battalion of the CRPF and
Constable Anil Ramachari cooperate with the
investigative agency.
While the Government of Jammu and Kashmir and
Jammu and Kashmir Police conrmed that the incident
had taken place, they submitted before the High Court
th
that investigations were ongoing and that the 179
Battalion CRPF was not cooperating. Letters from the
Station House Ofcer [SHO], Sopore Police Station to
the Additional Superintendent of Police [ASP], Sopore,
conrm that there was indiscriminate ring on the
victim.
th
The Union of India, 179 Battalion CRPF and
Constable Anil Ramachari denied the entire incident.
On 29 September 2009, the High Court ordered that
cooperation be provided to the investigative agency
and that the investigation be completed within three
months.
On continued non-conclusion of the investigation, the
family led a contempt petition [no.153/2010] before
the High Court. The Government of Jammu and
Kashmir and the Jammu and Kashmir Police
continued to claim that they had not received
cooperation from the Union of India. Further, they
conrmed that while the witnesses had identied
“HC/GD Satpal” during an identication parade, others
[that included “Ct/GD Anil Ramachiary”] were not
th
identied. Further, that the 179 Battalion CRPF in
their Court of Inquiry had found none of their personnel
guilty. On 27 September 2011, the High Court ordered
that cooperation be provided, and that investigation be
concluded in six weeks. This petition remains pending.
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.
The State Human Rights Commission [SHRC], after
being approached by the family, issued its nal
decision on 1 April 2010 and recommended ex-gratia
government relief of Rs. 1,00,000 and other benets
due to the victim by virtue of his employment with the
Health Department. The family has received the Rs.
1,00,000.
The family of Abdul Qayoom Lone gave a statement to
the IPTK on 19 December 2011.
The instant case provides an interesting example of
the challenges that families of victims face in Jammu
and Kashmir.
On one hand the incident itself appears to have been
witnessed by other persons. But, if the family of the
victim is to be believed, the witnesses, due to fear,
have not identied Constable Anil Ramachari.
On the other hand, the investigations in the case
continue to drag on despite High Court rulings setting
deadlines for investigations, and ordering
cooperation. The role of the Union of India and the
th
179 Battalion of the CRPF in this case has been
criticized by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir,
and acknowledged by the High Court. But, what is
perhaps most curious in this case is the role of the
police investigating the case. This would become
apparent on considering the SHRC decision of 1 April
2010.
The SHRC begins by considering the reports led
before it by the Director General of Police [DGP],
Jammu and Kashmir, the SHO of Sopore Police
Station and the Deputy Commissioner, Baramulla.
The SHRC states that during investigation the basic
facts of the case – the death of the victim due to the
indiscriminate ring of the CRPF – have been made
out. The SHRC then states that “Constable Anil
Ramachari…is identied by the eye witnesses as
accused who red upon Abdul Qayoom Lone”.
163 Information on this FIR was sought through the Jammu and Kashmir Right to Information Act, 2009 [RTI] on 5 May 2012. No
information was provided. Further information sought through RTI on 15 October 2013. By communication dated 9 January 2014 from
the Jammu and Kashmir Police a copy of the FIR was provided and that the case was “under investigation”.