STRUCTURES OF VIOLENCE

452 | Structures of Violence
The family of Farooq Ahmad Rather gave a statement
to the IPTK on 14 March 2012.
First Information Report [FIR] no. 80/2008 u/s 149
[Liablity for other members of unlawful assembly],
341 [Wrongfully restraining person], 307 [Attempt to
murder], 386 [Extortion through fear of
death/grievous hurt], 392 [Robbery], 511 [Attempting
to commit offence punishable with life imprisonment
and in the process doing act towards the
commission of offence] Ranbir Penal Code, 1989
164
[RPC], was led at the Magam Police Station .
Further information sought through RTI dated 14
November 2014.
The family of the victim approached the State Human
Rights Commission [SHRC] in 2011 and the matter is
still pending [the family of the victim led a rejoinder
before the SHRC on 19 March 2012]. To date, they
have received Rs.1,00,000 ex-gratia government
relief, but no compassionate employment under SRO-
43 [Statutory Rules and Orders]. A letter dated 17
August 2008 from the Magam Police Station to the
SSP Budgam conrms that there was nothing adverse
against the victim in the police records. The nal
decision was given by the SHRC on 13 June 2012.
In addition to the nal decision of the SHRC, a series of
letters and other documents may be considered.
To begin with, the letter dated 17 August 2008 from the
Magam Police Station clearly establishes the
innocence of the victim. The application made by the
family of the victim before the SHRC, in contrast to the
statement given to the IPTK, accepts that there were
violent protests in Mazahama village on 25 June 2008.
Assuming this to be the position of the family, the
remainder of the documents will now be analyzed.
On 13 February 2009 the Superintendent of Police
[SP], Budgam, writing to the Deputy Commissioner,
Budgam, refers to Constable Jarnail Singh ring some
bullets “in air in haste” which resulted in the death of
the victim. But, on 22 October 2011, in a letter written
by the Director General of Police [DGP], Jammu and
Kashmir, Srinagar, to the SHRC, there is no longer any
reference to Constable Jarnail Singh although the
remainder of the facts remain the same.
Consequently, the letter now states that the
investigation was concluded and the case was closed
by declaring the perpetrators as untraced on 20
February 2011. Therefore, it appears to be a situation
of the Constable Jarnail Singh being shielded as within
a period of two years he no longer nds mention in the
record of the police.
The Deputy Secretary, General Administration
Department [GAD], Government of Jammu and
Kashmir, dated 28 October 2009, to the Deputy
Commissioner, Budgam, that states that “SRO-43
covers only the civilians who die as a result of militancy
related action and not in civil commotion”, thereby
denying any SRO-43 benets to the family of the
innocent victim. The Assistant Commissioner
[Revenue], Budgam, by letter dated 16 December
2009, to the SHRC, referred to the position of the GAD
and forwarded the 28 October 2009 letter. The family
of the victim argued against the position taken by the
GAD when ling its submissions before the SHRC. It
was argued that this was an inconsistent position
taken by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir as
there have been numerous instances of SRO-43
benets being provided in cases such as the instant
one [some of these cases may be found in this very
report]. Further, granting of SRO-43 benets only in
militancy related cases is discriminatory as there
exists no discernible reason that a person killed in a
“civil commotion” or at the hands of the armed forces
should not be entitled to compensation.
The SHRC nal decision begins by referring to the
documents on record. In addition to some of the
documents referred to above, reference is also made
to a letter from the Sub-District Police Ofcer [SDPO],
Budgam to the SP, Budgam which conrms the direct
involvement of the alleged perpetrator in the killing of
the victim. The SHRC rst conrmed the death of the
innocent victim by the alleged perpetrator. But, the
SHRC considered this to be an “accidental death” and
not a cold blooded murder. But, continuing, the SHRC
stated that standard operating procedures had not
been followed and that the alleged perpetrator must be
punished.
Further, the SHRC, commenting on the closure of the
case, stated that “the investigating ofcer cannot
hush-up the matter in such a slipshod manner”. The
SHRC recommended the reopening of the case for
further investigations by an ofcer not below the rank
of a Deputy Superintendent of Police [DSP].
Further, the SHRC stated on the issue of
compassionate employment that there can be no
discrimination and that the family of the victim must
also be provided compassionate employment.
The family has led a petition in the High Court for
implementation of the SHRC decision.
This case serves as a strong example of the widely
adopted practice in such circumstances when rules on
how and when to control a crowd are violated.
Within the context of Jammu and Kashmir, and the
past violations in similar circumstances, it is vital that
perpetrators of such crimes must not be allowed to be
protected under the guise of accidentally causing the
deaths of innocent victims.
164 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.