29 years after civilian’s killing in Kashmir, HC orders replacement of SIT head : Valley Vision

In a landmark ruling, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court has issued strong criticism of the Special Investigation Team (SIT) assigned to investigate the 1996 custodial killing of a Kashmiri civilian. This critical intervention follows nearly three decades of relentless efforts by Jameela Begum, a widow who has sought justice for her husband, Mohammad Ramzan Bhat, who was allegedly abducted and killed by police personnel on May 31, 1996.

The High Court, in its recent judgment, ordered the replacement of the SIT head overseeing the case, underscoring dissatisfaction with the investigation’s pace and integrity. This decision comes almost three decades after the incident, a painful chapter for the Bhat family that remains unresolved. The petition filed by Jameela challenges an April 30, 2022, order from the Judicial Magistrate in Srinagar, which directed the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) to replace the current SIT head, SP North, with a higher-ranked officer or a new SP, due to dissatisfaction with the investigation’s handling.

Sources told Maktoob that Hilal Khaliq Bhat, SP Hazratbal is appointed as the new head of the SIT.

In the ruling, Justice Sanjay Dhar noted, “A perusal of the Case Diary reveals that the investigation directed by the learned Magistrate in terms of Section 202 of the J&K Cr. P. C is going on at a snail’s pace. While law and order and other official duties may be important for the members of the investigating agency, that does not justify the SIT dragging its feet in the matter for more than three years since it was constituted on 28.10.2021. This Court shares the concern and anxiety of the learned Magistrate so far as it relates to the investigation’s conduct by the SIT.”

The background of the case reveals that Jameela filed a protest petition in April 2021 after the SIT submitted a closure report on her husband’s case, which she alleges was a cover-up by the police to frame the killing as a fake encounter. The Magistrate subsequently directed the formation of a new SIT, led by a Deputy Superintendent of Police (Dy. SP) to ensure a fair investigation.

The accused, as per the record, are identified as the SHO Rainawari Mir Hussain, Constable Noor Ud Din 427 9BTN Constable Ali Mohammad 2066. The then Investigating Officer SI Mohammad Sabir, Azam Gujar & Abdul Majeed.

The court emphasised the importance of accountability within law enforcement, instructing the SSP to conduct a thorough investigation into the involvement of previous officers, notably the former Investigating Officer, SHO Mir Hussain, and others who were part of the initial investigation before the case was reopened in 2006. Additionally, the SSP was directed to conclude the investigation in a timely manner, ideally within six months.

Jameela’s accusations allege that her husband was severely beaten and ultimately killed within Rainawari police station, demanding criminal proceedings against those involved. “A false report was lodged… to make it a case of encounter,” she claims.

Her lawyer, Tabassum Rasool, expressed the family’s frustration with the prolonged delay, remarking, “Such cases cry out for swift justice—if not now, then when? This case stands as a heartbreaking testament to a system where justice has withered amid legal and procedural delays.”

Tabassum Rasool further highlighted the family’s vulnerability and prolonged suffering, saying, “They deserve more than words; they deserve a system that stands by them with urgency, strength, and compassion, delivering the justice they have long been denied.” She questioned the SIT’s reliability, asking, “Who will police the police?” and emphasising the need for accountability.

Justice Dhar, reflecting on the conduct of SP North, noted in a report by The Wire, “From the overall conduct of SP North, it appears he has very callously dealt with a serious, fragile, and sensitive matter. Allowing this SP North to continue the investigation would be a complete waste of time and could prove fatal to the case.” The court held that the protest petitioner’s account of the events “contradicts the police’s version,” affirming the credibility of her counsel’s arguments.