After 17 years since the mysterious death of Sepoy Yuvraj Uttam Rao inside an army camp, the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) of Banihal has made a significant decision to reopen the investigation into the matter. Expressing dissatisfaction with the previous investigation, Judge Manmohan Kumar has issued a directive to the police to conduct further inquiries and provide a comprehensive report within three months.
The closure report, which had been pending for a considerable time, was presented to the court on September 18, 2021. However, during the court proceedings, discrepancies in the initial probe came to light, raising doubts about its thoroughness and sincerity.
According to the closure report, on May 19, 2006, at approximately 3:00 AM, the Adjutant of 17 RR alerted the Banihal Police Station about the fatal bullet injuries sustained by Sepoy Yuvraj Uttam Rao while on duty at the 17 RR Camp Gund Tethar.
The inquest report indicated that an unidentified official or officials had fired the shots that resulted in the death of Sepoy Yuvraj Uttam Rao. The investigation revealed four bullet holes in the roof of the sentry post, implying that the shots were fired from inside. The body was discovered in a guest house, while the murder weapon was found in another room. Witnesses testified to hearing gunshots, but many claimed ignorance about the incident.
Considering the heightened militancy in the Banihal area at that time, the investigation also explored the possibility of terrorist involvement. However, the investigating officer concluded that after more than ten years had passed since the incident, it was not feasible to identify the accused.
The court, however, highlighted several inconsistencies in the investigation. Notably, the investigating officer had initially suggested that unknown officials were responsible for the soldier's killing, while simultaneously raising the possibility of a terrorist act. The court remarked that the investigation lacked evidence supporting the theory of an attack from outside the camp, as the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report confirmed that the spent cartridges found at the scene were fired from Sepoy Yuvraj Uttam Rao's service weapon.
The court criticized the investigating officers for their failure to identify the accused or collect fingerprints from the weapon, suggesting incompetence or a potential cover-up. It stated that the excuse given by the investigating officer, claiming it was impossible to trace or identify the accused, was preposterous. The court emphasized that the deceased Sepoy Yuvraj Uttam Rao was not alone in the camp, as there were several army personnel and officers present during the incident. It deemed it unfortunate that an army jawan was killed inside the Army Camp with his own service weapon, yet the investigating officers were unable to trace the responsible party. Furthermore, no evidence explaining the cause of death or fingerprints from the weapon was collected by the police.
In light of these discrepancies and the pursuit of justice based on factual evidence, the court referred to a precedent set by the Supreme Court case, Hassanbhai Valibhai Quarashi vs. State of Gujarat (2004). This case held that further investigation can be ordered if the court deems it necessary due to the biased approach or mistakes made by the police due to ignorance or other reasons.
TAGS: reopening investigation Judicial Magistrate First Class Banihal dissatisfaction previous inquiry report three months closure report pending discrepancies probe doubts thoroughness sincerity Sepoy Yuvraj Uttam Rao army camp murder bullet injuries duty 17 RR Camp Gund Tethar inquest report unknown official fired shots death body murder weapon witnesses gunshots ignorance terrorists militancy IO identification accused transgression attack fateful night FSL report spent cartridges service weapon fingerprints lack of competence protect someone court investigating officers justice true facts Supreme Court case Hassanbhai Valibhai Quarashi vs. State of Gujarat (2004) further investigation partisan attitude mistakes ignorance directive.
