STRUCTURES OF VIOLENCE
4cONo1kTN
4cONo1kTN
- No tags were found...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
453| Structures of Violence<br />
Case No. 175<br />
Victim Details<br />
1. Mansoor Ali Kumar [Extra-Judicial Killing]<br />
Age: 17<br />
th<br />
Occupation: 10 standard student<br />
Son of: Ali Mohammad Kumar<br />
Resident of: Khanpora, Baramulla District<br />
2. Danish Gojri [Injuries]<br />
Age: 11/12<br />
th<br />
Occupation: 4 standard student<br />
Son of: Abdul Rehman Gojri<br />
Resident of: Khanpora, Baramulla District<br />
Alleged Perpetrators<br />
1. Personal Security Ofcers [PSO's] of Jammu<br />
and Kashmir Police accompanying Mushtaq<br />
Ahmad Mir, Member, Congress party<br />
Case Information<br />
On 7 November 2008 at about 11:15 am, Mansoor Ali<br />
Kumar and others playing cricket at the Government<br />
Middle School for Girls, Khanpora were asked to<br />
leave the premises. As Mansoor Ali Kumar was<br />
walking outside the school premises, he was shot<br />
dead. The family of Mansoor Ali Kumar believes that<br />
the victim was shot at by the PSO's accompanying the<br />
election campaign rally of the contesting Congress<br />
candidate Mushtaq Ahmad Mir. Another boy, Danish<br />
Gojri was injured in this ring. The family of Mansoor<br />
Ali Kumar states that the area was peaceful and there<br />
was no stone pelting taking place.<br />
On the same day of the incident, the family states that,<br />
Mushtaq Ahmad Mir appeared on the local news<br />
channel and denied any role in the incident. Five to six<br />
days later, the family states that Mushtaq Ahmad Mir<br />
sent a mediator to the family and asked them to forget<br />
about the incident and that two jobs would be provided<br />
to the family. But, no jobs were subsequently given. A<br />
year later, the same mediator asked the father of<br />
Mansoor Ali Kumar to accompany him and meet<br />
Mushtaq Ahmad Mir. The father of Mansoor Ali Kumar<br />
refused.<br />
The family of Mansoor Ali Kumar gave a statement to<br />
the IPTK on 29 December 2011.<br />
First Information Report [FIR] no.206/2008 u/s 332<br />
[Causing hurt to deter public servant from duty], 336<br />
[Act endangering human life/personal safety], 341<br />
[Wrongfully restraining person], 427 [Mischief<br />
causing damage of Rs.50 and upwards] Ranbir<br />
Penal Code, 1989 [RPC] was led at the Bandipora<br />
165<br />
Police Station. The family also led a written<br />
report but it was not added to the FIR. The<br />
communication of 9 May 2012 by the Jammu and<br />
Kashmir Police stated that the case was presently<br />
sub-judice. By communication dated 9 July 2012<br />
information was provided that the case had been<br />
chargesheeted. Further, a copy of the FIR was<br />
provided and documents were received that<br />
suggest that three persons were chargesheeted in<br />
this case.<br />
The family received Rs.1,00,000 ex-gratia<br />
government relief from the Deputy Commissioner,<br />
Baramulla.<br />
The State Human Rights Commission [SHRC] took<br />
suo moto cognizance of the case and recommended<br />
compassionate employment under SRO-43<br />
[Statutory Rules and Orders] to the family, as ex-gratia<br />
government relief had already been received by<br />
Mansoor Ali Kumar. The nal decision of the SHRC<br />
was on 3 May 2011. A report of the Director General of<br />
Police [DGP], Jammu and Kashmir before the SHRC<br />
states that the ring was a result of stone pelting<br />
caused by a violent mob. But, the SHRC considered<br />
the 18 December 2008 report of the Additional District<br />
Development Commissioner, Baramulla and found<br />
that the ring was unprovoked by unidentied armed<br />
forces. It is also of interest to note that on a separate<br />
complaint led on 19 May 2009, a nal decision was<br />
given by the SHRC on 19 November 2009. In this<br />
complaint the SHRC received a report from the<br />
Deputy Commissioner [DC], Baramulla dated 2<br />
September 2009 which stated that SRO-43 benets<br />
would not be accrued by the dependents of the victim<br />
based on the income level of the family, the fact that<br />
dependency on the victim was not proved, and that it<br />
was a “non-subversion/civil commotion case”. The<br />
matter was thereby disposed off.<br />
The family of Mansoor Ali Kumar state that they have<br />
yet to receive compassionate employment.<br />
The 18 December 2008 report of the Additional<br />
District Development Commissioner, Baramulla, after<br />
interviewing witnesses and Mushtaq Ahmad Mir,<br />
found that the ring was unprovoked. But, it failed to<br />
specically implicate the PSO's escorting Mushtaq<br />
Ahmad Mir. Mushtaq Ahmad Mir conrmed that he<br />
was travelling in a gypsy vehicle. Further, two<br />
witnesses conrmed that the ring had been from the<br />
personnel travelling in the gypsy vehicle. But, the<br />
enquiry chose to implicate “security forces (in khaki)”<br />
without conrming that they were travelling in the<br />
gypsy vehicle. But, crucially, the enquiry also stated<br />
that “the cloud of doubt against Mushtaq Ahmad Mir<br />
and his security personnel could not be cleared in this<br />
enquiry…”<br />
The decision of the SHRC on 19 November 2009<br />
denying SRO-43 benets based on the DC,<br />
165 Information on this FIR was sought through through the Jammu and Kashmir Right to Information Act, 2009 [RTI] on 7 October 2011. A<br />
copy of the FIR was provided by the Jammu and Kashmir Police by communication dated 9 May 2012. Further information sought<br />
through RTI on 15 October 2013. By communication dated 20 November 2013 from the Jammu and Kashmir Police a copy of the FIR<br />
and nal report was provided. It was stated that the case had been chargesheeted.