STRUCTURES OF VIOLENCE

490 | Structures of Violence
pertinent that the statements of witnesses had been
recorded after four years and six months.
A letter dated 12 March 2004 from the Senior
Superintendent of Police [SSP], Anantnag, to the
Deputy Commissioner [DC], Anantnag, states that
victim no.3 had moved an application requesting for a
copy of the FIR in the case and a report in the matter in
relation to the abduction of her father on 5 January
1997.
Subsequently, a report was received from Station
House Ofcer [SHO], Anantnag Police Station that the
victim was abducted by the armed forces as a suspect
with the plea that militants were visiting the house of
the victim. The husband of victim no.3, Khursheed
Ahmad Reshi, was found to have been associated with
the Hizbul Mujahideen, but later surrendered, and had
a second marriage. The report also states that the
army personnel “misbehaved” with victims 2 and 3.
The Ministry of Defence, in its afdavit before the High
Court of Jammu and Kashmir in 2009 on sanctions for
prosecution under AFSPA, stated in relation to this
case that it was under consideration.
The Government of Jammu and Kashmir, in response
to information sought through the Jammu and Kashmir
Right to Information Act, 2009 [RTI] on sanctions for
prosecutions under AFSPA, stated on 6 September
2011 in relation to this case that sanction was declined
on 21 April 2010.
The Ministry of Defence, in response to an RTI on 10
January 2012 on sanctions for prosecution under
AFSPA, stated in relation to this case that sanction
was declined on 21 April 2007. Further, that: “there
were a number of inconsistencies in the statements of
witnesses. The allegation was lodged by the wife of a
dreaded Hizbul Mujahideen militant. The lady was
forced to lodge a false allegation by ANE's [antinational
elements]”.
According to the family of Ghulam Mohammad Shah,
the matter was also considered by the State Human
Rights Commission [SHRC] which recommended that
appropriate punishment be given to Major Arora.
Further, Rs.5,00,000 and compassionate employment
under SRO-43 [Statutory Rules and Orders] were
recommended.
The family of victim no.1 state that they have received
Rs.1,00,000 ex-gratia government relief but no
compassionate employment under SRO-43 [Statutory
Rules and Orders]. The son of victim no.3, is pursuing
the matter as the adopted son of victim no.1.
Based on the available record it appears that the
investigation into this case by the Jammu and Kashmir
Police is not comprehensive at all. Apparently, the
police is only investigating the allegation of rape
whereas based on the family testimony there were
atleast four crimes on that day with the family of victim
no.1: the rape of victim no.2, rape of victim no.3,
enforced disappearance of victim no.1, assault on the
victims and the destruction of propery i.e. house of
victim no.1. The 12 March 2004 letter from the Senior
Superintendent of Police [SSP], Anantnag specically
notes the abduction of victim no.1. The FIR notes the
abduction of victim no.1 and the rape of victim no.3.
Finally, with regard to the police, it appears the police is
d i s o r g a n i z e d a s t h e 1 6 N o v e m b e r 2 0 1 3
communication does not refer to the denial of sanction
at all.
The family has also received Rs.1,00,000 ex-gratia
government relief which must have been for the
abduction and enforced disappearance of victim no.1.
It needs to be investigated why the Jammu and
Kashmir Police ignored the other crimes.
The denial of sanction of 21 April 2010 is an example of
the institutional denial of these multiple crimes. The
claim made by the Ministry of Defence that the crime
did not take place by stating that vitim no.3 was
married to a Hizbul Mujahideen militant and is
perceived to be anti-national and liable to be untruthful
is no defence and is not grounded in logic or the law.
Further, the inconsistencies referred to by the Ministry
of Defence are weak, devoid of any understanding of a
context and misrepresentations.
First, the issue of the delayed FIR is answered in the
FIR itself wherein it is noted that victims 2 and 3 had
been threatened by the army to not report the crimes,
and that they were apprehensive of reporting the
crimes due to continued disappearance victim no.1.
Second, the Ministry of Defence has declined sanction
based presumably on the casele of investigations
submitted by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir.
The casele is not with the IPTK and therefore the
other assertions of the Ministry of Defence on
contradictions in witness statements cannot be
appropriately analyzed here. But, the Ministry of
Defence has wrongly used the alleged contradictions
between the FIR and the subsequent statements of
the witnesses. The FIR is a document recorded by the
police and cannot be used to contradict a duly
recorded statement by a witness.
Finally, the available documents do not suggest that
even a court-martial was conducted in this case by the
army.
Case No. 7
Victim Details
1. [Name and identifying information withheld]
[Assault and Rape]
Resident of: Budgam District
2. [Name and identifying information withheld]
[Assault]
Resident of: Budgam District