“Despite clinching evidence, the accused have not been arrested and an FIR has not been lodged; any further delay would be a ‘travesty of justice’, says victim’s kin”
SRINAGAR: In the heart of Srinagar’s Miskeen Bagh, tragedy unfolded on a fateful evening in 1996, casting a long shadow of injustice over the lives of Muhammad Ramzan Bhat’s family.
Ramzan, a humble shopkeeper, who doubled up as a daily wager, and the sole provider for his household, was forcibly detained by the personnel of the Special Operations Group (SOG), tortured and allegedly killed in custody, and wrongly passed off as a militant killed in a gun-battle.
Ever since his family has continued to battle for justice despite the courts and investigating agencies showing occasional glimmers of hope. The most recent relief came from the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in October 2021, which directed the police to initiate a probe.
However, with delayed hearings and investigating agencies looking for pretexts to delay the proceedings, justice for the family remains elusive.
The Incident of 1996
It was May 31, 1996, when the tranquility of the Bhat family was shattered by the arrival of uniformed armed personnel of the SOG in the bustling streets of Miskeen Bagh, where Ramzan had set up his small provision store, close to his house. Chaos erupted unexpectedly, triggered by their sudden arrival drawing the attention of residents and shopkeepers.
Ramzan found himself at the center of the turmoil when the personnel of the SOG descended upon his shop.
Eyewitnesses, including neighbours and passers-by, recount the harrowing sight of Ramzan being forcibly seized by the SOG personnel, beaten up and dragged away, forcibly taken into custody.
Amidst the chaos, Jameela Begum, Ramzan’s wife, emerged from their home, drawn by the sounds of turmoil emanating from the streets.
Jameela embarked on a desperate quest to locate her husband. Her relentless pursuit led her to the Rainawari police station, where she witnessed the grim sight of her husband being carried inside, unconscious and battered. Despite her pleas for answers, she was met with hostility and intimidation, compelling her to wait anxiously for any news of her husband’s fate.
The following day brought devastating news – two bodies were discovered in the vicinity of Miskeen Bagh, one of them belonging to Ramzan and the other belonging to Meraj-ud-Din, another person picked up from Miskeen Bagh.
Ramzan’s lifeless form bore the cruel marks of torture, a grim testament to the horrors he endured in custody. A postmortem report revealed the extent of his injuries – sharp wounds, strangulation marks, and fractured ribs – a chilling indictment of the brutality inflicted upon him.
Police accused him and Meraj-ud-Din of being a militant and claimed he was killed in a gunfight after militants concealed in a hideout in Miskeen Bagh fired upon security forces.
As Jameela grappled with the unbearable grief of losing her husband, she resolved to seek justice for his killing and clearing his name. Despite facing indifference and apathy from authorities, Jameela remained steadfast in her pursuit of truth and accountability.
Muhammad Ramzan BhatInitial Investigation
The Police had lodged an FIR 88/1996 against Ramzan and Meraj-ud-Din for terrorist activities. Some other persons were also named in the FIR. The case was later closed as untraced.
To counter these claims, Jameela, through her counsel, Tabassum Rasool, approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate and sought a counter-FIR against the cops. The court directed the police to investigate the matter.
Following this directive, the then SSP, Srinagar sought a reinvestigation of FIR 88/1996, and a Special Investigation Team (SIT) was constituted for the purpose. During the probe, it was found that Ramzan and Meraj-ud-Din were innocent. They had been tortured and killed by two SOG personnel, Abdul Majeed and Azam Gujjaru. It was also found that the officers, who were part of the initial investigation were involved and a challan was filed. However, no counter FIR was lodged.
The accused personnel mentioned were SHO Rainawari Mir Hussein, Constable Noorudin 427 9th BTN, and Constable Ali Mohammad 2066. They were accused of misleading the investigating agency and providing false details about the incident.
CID Report & Damning Evidence
The investigation was based on a report by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) and Ramzan’s post-mortem report provided clinching evidence of his innocence and his torture in custody. The CID report exposed the true nature of Ramzan’s death – a cold-blooded act of torture and murder at the hands of those sworn to protect him.
The CID report, dated October 20, 2005, detailed the outcome of its field investigation. According to the report, two armed guards, Abdul Majeed and Azam Gujjaru, who were stationed at the Social Welfare Department’s Miskeen Bagh premises, borrowed essential commodities from Ramzan’s shop on credit. When Ramzan demanded repayment, the guards, in collaboration with the SOG Rainawari, arrested him and another man named Meraj-ud-Din. They subjected Ramzan to torture, resulting in his death. The report further revealed that Ramzan was not involved in subversive activities, debunking the police’s allegations.
The CID report also states that the guards and SOG Rainawari then threw the body in a stream.
The postmortem report and verification reports of the CID contradict the claims made by the police. The postmortem report claims that there were torture marks on his body and the CID report says he was not involved in subversive activities.
SHRC Verdict
Subsequently, Jameela petitioned the State Human Rights Commission (SHRC), which gave a favourable judgement.
In 2007, the State Human Rights Commission in its verdict questioned the police allegation that the deceased was a militant. “The report of the police doesn’t inspire credibility because had there been any firing from the alleged hideout, some persons of the raiding party would have been injured. There is no such injury caused to the raiding party,” the rights body said.
However, despite these interventions and police investigations nailing the lie of the previous investigation and indicting the cops of torture, murder and tampering the probe, justice remained in limbo as the police failed to lodge a counter FIR.
Years of anguish and frustration culminated in a ray of hope when, in October 2021, a court in Srinagar issued a landmark order, directing the police to form a new SIT to investigate Ramzan’s murder, following her petition seeking the police investigation’s status report on the case.
October 2021 order
Before this happened, the case continued to be caught in procedural delays.
In 2021, Jameela petitioned the court of Second Additional Munsiff, Srinagar, seeking cognizance after the investigators filed a final report for closure in the court of Second Additional Munsiff. On October 28, 2021, the court directed the police to investigate the officers involved in the previous investigation, fix their responsibilities, and file the report within next few weeks.
The court of Second Additional Munsiff Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar, directed the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Srinagar, to constitute a SIT headed by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police to investigate the case of the death of Muhammad Ramzan Bhat.
The court also directed the SSP to investigate the role of the then Investigating Officer and the Station House Officer of Rainawari police station, as well as other officials, who played a key role in the investigation of Ramzan’s death before the case was reopened in 2006, and fix responsibilities.
In its order, the court said the postmortem of the deceased shows that he was subjected to torture. According to the postmortem report, the deceased sustained a sharp penetrating wound and there were strangulation marks on both his wrists.
It also reveals the deceased’s eighth, ninth and tenth ribs were fractured and he had ecchymosis around the right eye.
The CID field verification report corroborates all the claims made by the family of the deceased.
After this order, Jameela’s lawyer appealed to the court for a status report, based on which the court sought information from SSP Srinagar whether an FIR was lodged in the case and whether the accused persons had been arrested or not.
The SSP, Srinagar, was asked in November 2021 to file a status report about the progress of the investigations and whether the accused SHO, Investigation Officer, and two other constables have been arrested or not.
On December 2, 2021, the SSP Srinagar was also directed by the trial court to file a status report every Saturday as to whether a fresh FIR has been lodged against the accused police officers and about the status of the investigation headed by the SP City North Srinagar. The court sought clarifications on whether a report had been received from the SSP, Srinagar, and what was the status of the investigation in compliance with the court directions.
On January 19, 2021, the trial court expressed its displeasure to the SP City North Srinagar for not connecting with the court in a virtual mode and for not filing the latest status report. The court directed the SP City, who was heading the investigation to appear before the court in person on January 24, 2022 and explain how the investigation has been taken up without filing a fresh FIR against the accused police officials.
Delays and non-compliance by Investigators
After repeated notices to the SP City North Srinagar, the court listed the hearing at least twice a week till April 2022. No satisfactory status report was filed before the court by the police. Ultimately on April 30, 2022, the court directed the SSP, Srinagar to replace the SP City North Srinagar as he was not complying with the court directions leading to a “miscarriage of justice”.
After a delay of many months, the police sought more time for filing the status report, which was granted by the Principal Sessions Judge, Srinagar. The police further sought time of two weeks in succession for more months. At a later stage in 2022 itself, the court granted 45 days and another extension of six months, but no status report was filed.
Bypassing what the court had ordered, the Investigating Officer kept filing status reports which were a copy-and-paste version of what was already on the file. No information was given about the accused. They were not arrested, and no FIR was lodged, which continues to be the case to date.
Jameela’s lawyer pleaded that as per criminal jurisprudence, the first step in a case of criminality is the lodgement of an FIR, the absence of which was enabling the accused to evade arrest. The court observed that there was glaring non-compliance on the part of the investigators and ordered the SSP to remove the Investigating Officer, describing him as “incompetent”.
Criminal Revision Petition in HC
Challenging this order, the Investigating Officer (IO) approached the High Court for a criminal revision, pleading that an FIR of 88/1996, on the basis of which the court stayed the filing of the status report. The case is pending and has not been listed for hearing since April 2023.
Meanwhile, Jameela has filed her objections to the IO’s petition, stating that the Investigating Officer is misleading the court by omitting facts. It pointed out that the FIR of 88/1996 was lodged by the police against her husband, proclaiming him as a terrorist whereas investigations show that he is innocent and was wrongfully killed. She has pleaded before the court that the Investigating Officer has deliberately not mentioned the CID report and the post-mortem report which clearly points out criminality on the part of the accused – the SOG personnel and the initial investigators, who were shielding them. Her petition states that the previous FIR does not reflect that custodial killing has taken place. Based on her submissions, she has sought the lodgement of a counter FIR.
Jameela’s latest plea
Jameela Begum has now filed a fresh application with “urgency memo” for early hearing of the case pertaining to “extra-judicial killing” of her husband Mohammad Ramzan Bhat on the intervening night of May 31 and June 1, 1996, in the Jammu and Kashmir High Court. Her petition pleads that police have been seeking adjournments on one pretext or the other for the past two years.
The case is likely to be listed for hearing in May this year after a gap of almost one year when the stay on the order of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Srinagar, directing the local police to register a fresh First Information Report (FIR), was extended by the High Court.
Jameela Begum has sought urgent and early hearing of the case as it has been pending and delayed due to technicalities. In her application, she has sought dismissal of the petition of the Jammu and Kashmir police with costs.
She has also sought court monitoring of the investigation by police after registration of a fresh FIR to probe the “extra-judicial killing” of Mohammad Ramzan Bhat and also a probe into the role of the police officials involved in the investigation of the case.
Apart from this, she has also sought arrest and prosecution of the police officials and civilians involved in the “custodial killing” of her husband. She has alleged that the police officials involved in the case have not been appearing before the court and the police have not been able to affect their presence on the pretext that “the then SHO of Rainawari Police Station and two other policemen have remained untraced”.
Jameela Begum questioned the efficiency of the police officers in affecting the presence of the “accused police officials” as they were getting their pensions from the department after their retirement. The then SHO retired in 1998 while other officials superannuated from their service later.
She also wanted the High Court to take notice of the police officials willfully disobeying the directions of the trial court in the light of the admission of the fact by the SP City, North Srinagar, two years that his office has not been executing the communications meant for affecting the presence of the police officials involved in the case in May 2022. To date, no follow-up action has been taken by the police.
Resilience of Bhat family
Despite almost three decades of delay, strengthening the Bhat family’s resolve and resilience is Jameela Begum, a semi-literate woman, who carried on her struggle to seek justice despite setbacks from time to time during the past close to 28 years.
Jameela was only 35 years old when her husband was killed. Her three sons were all less than 10 years old. She did not only take on the mantle of fighting for justice but also had to play the role of breadwinner for the family.
She has recorded her statement hundreds of times before police officers, politicians of all hues and now defunct Jammu and Kashmir State Human Rights Commission. She has moved from pillar to post for justice.
She is now joined by her sons, who are inspired by Jameela’s courage and determination. Bilal, one of her sons said that the family will not give up the fight for justice. “We assist her but she is the real fighter,” he says.
The Bhat family is dismayed by the deliberate dilly-dallying tactics of the investigators to prolong the case. “Either they don’t appear or provide misleading or half-baked information,” they say. Added to this, the hearings are also delayed.
After a long wait of 28 years, the family feels that there is an urgency for the case to be admitted for a final hearing. “If the accused dies of natural death, it would be a travesty of justice,” it maintains.
—–
