LexMASOODA PARVEEN versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A MASOODA PARVEEN v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. MAY 2, 2007 B [B.P. SINGH AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] Constitution of India, I 950: Art.32-Writ petition seeking compensation and job on compassionate C ground for custodial death of husband-Army and police show that deceased was militant and the circumstances leadinr. to his death were as per the circumstances put on record by respondents-No evidence to suggest that petitioner's case was worthy of belief-Writ petition dismissed-Armed Forces (J&K) Special Powers Act, 1958-s.6. D The petitioner filed Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for seeking compensation and job on compassionate ground for the custodial death of her husband. According to petitioner, deceased R was practicing Advocate. Some militants who were working alongwith the Army got him arrested on 6th October, 1994 on the allegation that he was a E Pakistani Trained Militant and kept in custody for about three months and then released. On 1st February, 1998 some surrendered militants alongwith a unit of the Army (17 Jat) reached R's home in Chandhara and searched his house but found nothing incriminating therein. He was nevertheless taken to the Lethapora Army Camp, the Head Quarters of the 17 Jat, and tortured F mercilessly leading to his death whereafter explosives were placed on his dead body and then detonated to camouflage the murder. I- The grievance of petitioner was that despite the fact that police station Pam pore was a stone throw away from village Chandhara, no effort had been made by the Army to convey the information to the police at the earliest and G the police had been called in only on the morning of 3rd February 1998 after 'R' had been done to death; that the story with regard to the circumstances in which 'R' had died and the fact that the original record had not been produced before this Court led to the inference that there was something amiss and the respondents were accordingly engaged in a cover up exercise. H 1106 , MASOOD A PAR VEEN v. U.0.1. 1107 Respondents contended that the raids on 'R' house and all subsequent A events were purely an army operation and the police had come into the picture only after 'R' had died and the record up to the stage of his death was with the army and it had been produced before the Court during the course of the hearing. Dismissing the Writ Petition, the Court B HELD: 1. Many in Kashmir who have gone astray are Indian citizens and it is this situation which has led to this incident. A fight against militancy is more a battle for the minds of such persons, than a victory by force of arms, which is pyrrhic and invariably leads to no permanent solution. In this process C some unfortunate incidents do occur which raise the ire of the civil population, often exacerbating the situation, and the belief of being unduly targeted with a feeling in contrast of the law and order machinery that it is often in the dock and called upon to explain the steps that they have taken in the course of what they rightly believe to be the nation's fight. The examination of a D complaint, and the provision of an effective redressal mechanism preferably at the hands of the administration itself, or through a court of law if necessary, is perhaps one the most important features in securing a psychological advantage. In an investigation of this kind based only on affidavits, with a hapless and destitute widow in utter despair on the one side and the might of the State on the other, the search for the truth is decidedly unequal and the E court must therefore tilt just a little in favour of the victims. [Para 6) [1111-F-H; 1112-A, BJ 2.1. A bare reading ofs.6 of Armed Forces (J & K) Special Powers Act, 1958 would show that information with regard to the arrest of any person or F seizure of property or arms and ammunition or explosives under the Act has to be conveyed to the officer in-charge of the nearest police station with the least possible delay etc. [Para 11) [1113-C-D) Naga People's Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India, (1998) 2 sec 109, referred to. G "ll 2.2. The site plan produced by petitioner in Court gives the general locations of Chandhara village, police station Pam pore, Lethapora Army Camp and the Wasturwan Heights where 'R' had apparently met his end. Concededly all four locations are very close the each other - the maximum distance being H I 108 SUPREME COURT
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.