STRUCTURES OF VIOLENCE

459| Structures of Violence
was left subject to the post-mortem report in the case.
A post-mortem report, dated 18 May 2009, was
submitted by the Department of Forensic Medicine,
Government Medical College, Srinagar. The report
states that the victim was brought to the hospital by an
auto driver, thereby contradicting the family of the
victims' reference to a Santro car. The report stated
that there were abrasions on the body of the victim.
The report concluded by stating that death was
caused due to a massive sub-dural haemorrhage
caused by blunt force. Also on record is a letter from
the Head of Department, Forensic Medicine,
Government Medical College, Srinagar, to the Sub-
District Police Ofcer [SDPO], Shaheed Gunj,
Srinagar, dated 7 April 2011, which stated that “the fall
which deceased had can cause sub dural
haemorrhage or sub dural haemorrhage can cause
fall”. Further, that the “abrasion found where
mechanical in nature. The possibility of acquiring
abrasion while handling of the body cannot be ruled
out”.
The State Human Rights Commission [SHRC] took
suo moto cognizance of the case on 22 May 2009 and
issued its nal decision on 5 January 2011. A letter
from the Assistant Commissioner, Kashmir, dated 27
June 2009, to the SHRC states that Inspector
Khursheed Ahmed Wani had been dismissed from his
service by the Government.
The family of the victim approached the Chief Judicial
Magistrate [CJM], Srinagar on 9 September 2009 to
monitor the investigations of the police. On 26 April
2012, the Special Mobile Magistrate, PT&E Srinagar,
took cognizance of the nal report of 26 April 2012
submitted by Sub-Divisional Police Ofcer [SDPO],
Shaheed Gunj, the Investigating Ofcer. The
conclusion of the Investigating Ofcer was that a
prima facie case was not made out against any
person and the case had been closed. A status report
on record of 13 February 2012 suggests that the
witnesses, whose statements were recorded, did not
testify to physical force being used.
Further, the witnesses do not state that the victim was
at any point restrained/assaulted/conned. The Court
stated that all the witnesses except one witness had
deposed that the death took place in the cabin of
Inspector Khursheed Ahmed Wani. The single
witness had stated that the death took place in the
lobby of the cabin. The Court noted that the victim had
died “of his own due to sub-dular haemorrhage”.
There were no marks of violence on the head of the
deceased as noted by two doctors who deposed
under Section 164-A [Evidence of material witnesses
to be recorded by Magistrate in certain cases]
Criminal Procedure Code, 1989 (CrPC). The case
was closed as not admitted/not proved. This decision
has been challenged in the High Court of Jammu and
Kashmir. Notices have been issued to the parties in
the case.
In the instant case, the investigative process may be
analysed in addition to the role of the alleged
perpetrators.
On record is a 3 December 2011 order of the CJM,
Srinagar, monitoring the investigations, which states
the following:
- “I am compelled to note here 'Sorry State of
things' as regards investigation of the case.”
- “If this is to be the pace of investigation, then
only God knows when investigation will be
completed.”
- “The conduct of the investigation cannot be
left to sweet will of investigating agency.”
Based on the above observations, the Court ordered
the Senior Superintendent of Police [SSP], Srinagar
to monitor the investigations on a daily basis, submit
progress reports fortnightly, and for investigations to
be completed within two months. Further, and of
particular interest, is a letter dated 25 September
2009 from the Chief Prosecuting Ofcer, Srinagar to
the SDPO, Shaheed Gunj, Srinagar. This letter states
that a combined reading of the evidence collected
during the investigations suggests that there was a
money dispute involving the victim and Hilal Ahmad
alias Sahaba. Further, the victim was called to the
Cargo Complex by Inspector Khursheed Ahmed
Wani.
During his time at the Cargo Complex the victim
developed “some complications” and died. The letter
continues, in very clear and strong language, to
suggest that the investigations must not be concluded
until a perpetrator is found as there is evidence to
suggest that the death of the victim was not natural.
Even if Inspector Khursheed Ahmed Wani is found not
to be involved, the investigations must not be
concluded. The letter states that “the clinching point
which will change the course of investigation is 'the
circumstances and the condition of the deceased at
the time when he complained of giddiness'. No nding
on this point has been returned that is whether he was
hit on the head or he fell in a way which exerted force
on his head or otherwise”. Further, it was stated that till
date prima facie evidence had come on record
against Inspector Khursheed Ahmed Wani under
Sections 166 [Public servant disobeying law, with
intent to cause injury to any person] and 342
[Wrongfully conning person] Ranbir Penal Code,
1989 [RPC].
Therefore, this document clearly suggests that atleast
on 25 September 2009, the guilt of Inspector
Khursheed Ahmed Wani, albeit to a lesser extent, was
considered to have been established, but that further
investigations were being suggested. It is then
unclear why in 2012 the case was considered closed
by the investigating authorities, and endorsed by the
lower judiciary.
With regard to the event itself, the post-mortem report,