'Jan Commission's purpose of Shopian inquiry defeated'

Courtesy: Zee News dated July 12th, 2009

New Delhi, July 12: Justice Muzaffar Ahmad Jan probing the alleged rape and murder of two women in Shopian district of Jammu and Kashmir on Sunday accepted that the very purpose of the Commission was defeated as prime culprits were still not identified.

"I feel sorry. If the culprit was apprehended then of course it would have been a complete success. You cannot create evidence. You have to wait. Commission does compel anyone to depose," Jan told reporters in a telephonic interview.

He was answering to a question whether the purpose of the Commission was defeated as prime culprits were yet to be identified.

He also chose to distance himself from some annexures in his report, questioning the behaviour of brother and husband of Neelofar -one of the victims, which generated controversy in the valley.

"That is not my report...Unfortunately...what has happened is that the investigating team, our police investigating team have also prepared their investigating report which I did not accept, which I did not take on record, which I did not include in the main report," he said when asked about some portions of his report which generated anger in the valley.

When asked specifically why he submitted those annexures if they were not part of his report, Jan tried to defend himself saying,"...that is all right annexures were there but I have not incorporated anything in the report. You see, if somebody puts up an application before the court, the court keeps the application on the file. We don't clear off the application. The fact is that we have not taken anything from the report."

"You see there are number of other annexures with the report...Investigating authority has submitted a list of 60 witnesses examined by them. Along with that report, which is his report, saying that investigations on these lines could be conducted. I had nothing further to do with the investigations. I did not adopt the report," he further clarified.

When asked why he did not leave a note of dissent in his report, Justice Jan said it was a one man commission so there was no question of any dissent.

He also said prime culprits could not be nailed because initially evidence was "destroyed" which could be attributed to "negligence" of the investigating police officers.

"Evidence was not collected when it was available, when it could have been detected then ultimately the evidence is destroyed. It can be attributed to negligence also," he said.