Few facts are very clear:
1. The boy has given a dying declaration naming unidentified army men for setting him ablaze.
2. The boy was a Muslim.
3. Many in the Indian Army have turned communal on the lines of RSS/BJP.
4. The Indian Army has denied involvement of any army personnel in the incident after an internal inquiry.
5. The boy was burned inside an army controlled area, where civilians are not allowed free entry.
From the above facts, it is clear that there is a very credible relevant evidence of a very young boy, which has to be believed without doubts. Under s. 106 of the Evidence Act, the army officer-in-charge of the army area has the burden of proving the facts within his special knowledge; i.e., how the boy was burned. The army officer-in-charge, without discharging the burden placed upon him under law, has given a clean chit to all army personnel on duty under him, which prima-facie tantamount to harbouring criminals in view of the credible dying declaration of the boy. Now, if the SHO concerned of the local police station doesn’t register an immediate FIR against the army officer-in-charge and launch an investigation thereto, he would be guilty of the abetment of the crime of harbouring criminals.