By Balraj Puri
Fresh inquiry into Ruchika case, mainly due to the media hype, has revived many similar cases of women victims suppressed by powers that be in places like Ghaziabad and Ahmedabad. In Kashmir, it has given a fresh stimulus to the agitation over suspected rape and murder of two sisters-in-law in Shopian.
Common point in all such cases is that suspected criminals happen to be those responsible fo our security. But unlike elsewhere, it was the CBI report which has provoked hostile reaction. The state High Court which had directed the State government to refer the case to the CBI, and to which it submitted its report on December 14, 2009 has just started a hearing on it.
The case was referred to the premier investigation agency of India. When the people and apparently the state government were not satisfied with the earlier investigations.
There were certainly some flaws in the manner the case was initially handled. The bodies of Nilofar (22) and her sister-in-law Asiya (17) were found on May 30 but police took five days to register the case. The Special Investigation Team of the state police was set up on June 8 after strong protests by the people. What happened to the vaginal swabs of the victims during 27 day chain of events before they arrived at the Central Forensic Laboratory could raise some doubts. The SIT sent the blood samples of four policemen for DNA profiling to FSL New Delhi to check for a match with DNA profile of the slides of the vaginal swabs of the victims. It came to the conclusion that vaginal swabs did not belong to the victims. The role of the policemen also came under cloud.
The Muzaffar Jan Commission, after thorough investigations, recommended in its report on July 7 suspension of four police officers and two doctors for fudging evidence and further action by the government against them. But it did conclude that the girls were murdered and raped. Its failure to specifically identity the culprits was subject of criticism. It was alleged that powers that be were trying to shield them.
Drowning or Motives
The CBI ruled out rape and murder and held that they died due to drowning. It did not find any evidence against 4 police officers indicted by the Jan Commission and instead filed charge sheet against five lawyers of Shopian Bar Association, 6 doctors and two civilians for fabricating evidence. These lawyers were pleading the case on behalf of the relatives of the victims. Thus CBI made prosecutors as accused. The two civilians included in its charge sheet were shopkeepers near the bridge on Rumbiara nallah where dead bodies were found. They had told the Jan Commission that they had seen on May 29 men in Khati on a police vehicle Tata 407 trying to silence two women who were crying. The CBI has exonerated both of them and held that they made their statement to the Commission under the influence of the lawyers. Who could have influenced them more lawyers or the police which kept them in custody for one month?
Commenting on the CBI report, Justice (Retd) Muzaffar Jan who had enquired the case earlier said, “I stand by my report which rules out death by drowning” as per police records, no case of drowning had been reported by the police in the knee deep nallah.” Justice (Retd) Jan adds, “on inspection, it was found that although there is a bridge on Rambiara nallah yet a number of people, including young boys were seen crossing the stream with ease `with loads on their heads.” He quotes an executive engineer, floods and planning, who deposed before the Commission that the Water level in the nallah on May 27 was 0.45 meters in which nobody can be drowned.
Motives should not be suspected
Whom should one believe out of the conflicting versions of the Jan Commission and the CBI on drowning as a cause of death? Intriguingly the CBI had accused the Bar Association of Shopian, which was trying to prove that the two women were raped and murdered, of making a bid to implicate the security forces. How does one judge the motives of any body? Would one be justified in concluding that the CBI was making a bid to defend the honour of security forces?
There is no security force like the Indian army, BSF or CRPF as near the Rambiara nallah as the police lines and all the evidence points needle of suspicion to the state police of suppressing, destroying and fabricating crucial evidence in the case. The state government, the Jan Commission and the High Court therefore concurred on suspending police officers. The CBI exonerated them.
Shopian tragedy has also a lesson for the political parties of the state. Those who added demand for withdrawl of Indian forces from the state, draconian laws which gives impunity to them and other aspects of the Kashmir problem must realize that however legitimate their demands may be they are not directly related to the Shopian tragedy and hence do not do justice to the souls of the tortured women or the agony of their relatives and people of Shopian. However, Majlis Mushawarat Shopian tried to stick to its own course of action.
There is a lesson for the young chief minister of the state. He should not have rushed to the conclusion that the two ladies were drowned soon after the incident on the advice of his security advisor, who was later sacked and he also retracted his statement. Too much concentration of power and urge to personally deal with each and every problem of every body are self-defeating.
If there was an elected district authority, as is the case in the rest of the country, it would have been closer to reality and in a far better position to know the pulse of the people, it would take prompt action or advise the state government to take appropriate measures to deal with the situation before it took an explosive turn. The chief minister would have been spared of the embarrassing position in which he finds himself after the CBI report. He should even now make an attempt to seek the cooperation of all parties in finding out the culprits of the Shopian crime.
Thankfully the CBI’s report is not the last word on the subject. It is being examined by the State High Court. Its chief Justice, Justice Brain Ghosh has said, “the report is not a gospel and should not be taken as sacrament”.