Srinagar: The Army is trying to cover up the “true facts” of an alleged fake encounter in which a young Kashmiri civilian was gunned down in 2012 and passed off as a terrorist, a court in Bandipora district observed on Tuesday, August 13.
Punching holes in the army’s claims, the principal sessions court in Bandipora also sought “oral and documentary evidence” from the army headquarters in New Delhi to ascertain whether the alleged encounter, which took place in the intervening night of July 24-25 in 2012, was staged or real, adding that the army’s role was “under scanner”.
On the fateful day, Hilal Ahmad Dar, a cement factory worker, was purportedly on the way to attend a religious gathering in Helmatpora village of Bandipora district along with Rameez Ahmad Dar and Nazir Ahmad when he was shot dead, prompting massive protests in the north Kashmir district by locals who blamed the army for the “cold-blooded murder”.
Rameez has been identified as the prime suspect in the murder while Nazir is a co-accused in the case, according to a chargesheet filed by the police.
Dismissing the bail application of Rameez on Tuesday, the court observed: “At the time of consideration of this bail application, both the police and the army have acted in such manner in this case where instead of collected/placing on record the true facts, they are hiding true facts from the sight of this court.”
The army’s kilo force, which has already concluded its own inquiry into the alleged fake encounter, claimed that an operation was launched after it got information about the movement of “two to three terrorists” on the fateful day in the north Kashmir area.
However, the court of principal sessions judge Amit Sharma questioned the claim, “If two to three terrorists were spotted by the army and only one was killed and where the two persons had gone, all the army witnesses are silent with respect to the same,” the court observed.
The police chargesheet described Dar as an “innocent civilian” and a “religious-minded person” who was lured into a trap. The post-mortem examination of the victim suggested that he was brutally tortured with previous injuries to his head and other body parts.
Questioning the government’s actions after the alleged encounter, the court observed: “If the army had actually killed one of the terrorists then what prompted the government to provide a job to the brother of the deceased, is a matter which is still under consideration and has to be answered by the leftover witnesses.”
Over the last 12 years, the court has examined 76 witnesses in the case, some of whom told the court that Dar, a resident of Aloosa village in Bandipora district, was “sold” to the army for money by Rameez, who worked as a source for the army at that time, and Nazir who accused the former of killing Dar with an AK-47 rifle which he “later on threw near the dead body of the deceased.”
The army claimed to have recovered two AK-47 rifles from the possession of the three suspects. The court, however, ruled that there was no evidence to suggest that the victim was carrying any weapons when he was on the way to attend the religious gathering.
The court also noted that no seizure memo was prepared by the army when an AK-47 rifle was purportedly recovered from the ‘encounter site’ and “there is nothing on record which reflects that these (weapons) were sealed in the presence of executive magistrate”.
“Only one AK-47 rifle was handed over (to the police) which contained different number whereas the two rifles of the AK-47 which was forwarded to FSL contained some other numbers. Not only this, the second weapon which was seized by the police in this case … is AK-56 rifle,” the court said.
Rameez Ahmad told the court on August 1, 2012, that the commanding officer of 27 Rashtriya Rifles, which was involved in the encounter, allegedly provided him with two weapons which he handed to Nazir Ahmad and Hilal Ahmad, the deceased.
Later, he called them to Halmatpora under the pretext of attending a religious gathering.
“So it has been gathered/inferred from the disclosure statement made by the accused person that the weapons which were found in the possession of the accused Nazir Ahmad as well as the deceased (were) provided to him by the Army or not. Here the role of the Army is also under the scanner of this court,” the court noted.
“How these weapons came into the possession of these accused persons including the deceased is a very material question which has yet to be discovered during the course of trial and in this regard the disclosure statement made by the accused is of prime importance and has yet to be proved during the course of trial.”
The court observed that the accused played an “instrumental role” in the alleged fake encounter by “providing the location of the deceased as well as co-accused to the army through mobile phone which was provided to him by the army,” according to a statement by one of the witnesses.
In a written response on October 6, 2012, the Army told the court that it provides money to its network of sources for information which leads to the elimination of militants but the army witnesses who deposed before the court said that no money was given to Rameez in the fake encounter.
The court observed that an investigation should be carried out to find out “whether the Army provided any money to him (Rameez) prior to this incident or thereafter”.
