. A day after police did not indicate any wrongdoing by security forces during the meeting with Hyderpora, family members disputed the allegations.
Police said on Tuesday the owner of the house was killed in “crossfire” after being used as a human shield by a foreign activist and described both Mudasir Gul and Amir Magrey having links to activists. Family members of the civilians challenged the police investigation.
On November 15, two activists and two local businessmen, identified as Mohammad Altaf Bhat and Mudasir Gul, who were described by police as “surface workers” of militant groups, were killed during the operation in Hyderpora. Police said the terrorists were hiding inside the shopping complex owned by Bhat. However, families disputed police claims and said the forces killed “innocent civilians” in a bogus encounter.
Sujit Kumar, DIG, said family members of the building owner Altaf Bhat had not given satisfactory answers about the tenants in the building.
Altaf Bhat’s brother, while rejecting the SIT report, called the report “fabricated”.
“This is wrong. I reject it. My brother had severe torture marks on his body. How come he became a human shield as the police claim when 2,000 members of the security forces were there. present there, ”Abdul Majeed Bhat told a local news agency in Srinagar.
Saima Bhat, niece of Altaf Bhat, said he was the sole owner of his property, so only he was aware of the documents such as the building permit, the rental deed with his tenants and the method of payment with its tenants. “We checked them at home but only got a few documents that we produced in front of them. The rest of the documents must have been in his personal room in the building, where the shooting incident occurred. The building was returned on Tuesday and we opened his room, all the documents regarding his business and his files were scattered, we could not find this file and the locker was also open. Whenever they summoned us, we went to meet them, ”she said.
“It was not about repeated summons. During the second summons, they asked for documents and on Wednesday they gave us the third summons. The first was to appear before the DIG as an eyewitness. The summons was addressed to Altaf’s older brother, Abdul Majid Bhat, ”she said.
Mudasir Gul’s wife also called the report “fabricated”. On Tuesday, the PAGD called the police press briefing a repetition of the old story and a cover-up of the incident.
Sajjad Lone of the Peoples’ Conference and Altaf Bukhari of the Apni Party also raised questions about the SIT.
“The Hyderpora probe was on the expected lines. One more addition to hundreds of ornamental probes Any victim of the past or the future had better not be caught in the wrong place at the wrong time or even in the right place at the wrong time. It is up to oneself to save oneself, ”Sajjad Lone said in a tweet.
Apni Party Chairman Altaf Bukhari said the way in which SIT gave voice to the forces in the Hyderpora meeting affair raised several questions. “What sort of probe is this. Already the folks at J&K have no faith in these probes, ”he said.
SIT warns political leaders against panel action for ‘speculative’ comments
Police on Wednesday cautioned political leaders for casting doubt on evidence obtained by the Special Investigative Team (SIT) into the Hyderpora encounter case.
Shortly after SIT chief DIG Sujit Kumar at a press conference on Tuesday did not reveal any wrongdoing by security forces at the meeting in Hyderpora, nearly all key leaders major political parties questioned the SIT investigation. Even civilian families called the probe fabricated.
“Today SIT came across several media posts from some political leaders and family members where they questioned the evidence SIT has obtained so far. These people tried to call it “concocted cover-up story”, “ornamental investigation”, “killer candy”, “police fairy tale” and so on. A judicial inquiry was opened and, as a result, the investigator issued a general notice through the electronic and print media and invited members of the general public to record his statement if such a person has knowledge or knowledge. or evidence regarding the incident. Anyone making statements should have addressed the investigator with genuine evidence at their disposal to corroborate or contradict the facts brought to light in the case, ”the SIT president said in a statement.
“The SIT constituted in this case is still investigating the matter and all such persons are again invited to provide any kind of evidence if they have any regarding the incident so that every aspect of the investigation is covered and concluded on the bottom, ”he said. .
The statement further states that such speculative statements by political leaders tend to create provocation, rumors, fear and alarm among the masses in general or particular sections of society.
“This type of approach is contrary to the rule of law and may result in appropriate penal provisions as contemplated by law,” the statement said.