SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(SC) 514

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S. OKA, UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.
State (CBI) – Appellant
Versus
Mohd. Salim Zargar @ Fayaz & Ors. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1681 of 2009, Criminal Appeal No. 1770 of 2009
Decided on : 20-03-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, AOR Ms. Rani Mishra, Adv.

Confessions under the TADA Act must adhere to strict procedural safeguards; failure to comply renders them inadmissible, impacting the prosecution's burden of proof.

Headnote:(A) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 - Section 19 - Ranbir Penal Code, 1932 - Sections 118, 302, 368, and 365 - Acquittal of accused in kidnapping and murder case - Special Court found prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, discarding confessions as inadmissible due to procedural lapses - Confessions recorded under duress and without proper safeguards - No recovery of weapon or credible eyewitness testimony. (Paras 2, 11, 27)

(B) Confessions - Admissibility - Section 15 of TADA Act requires strict adherence to procedural safeguards for confessions to be admissible - Failure to provide time for reflection and proper recording renders confessions unreliable. (Paras 13, 17, 22)

Facts of the case:
The case arose from the kidnapping and murder of Dr. Mushir-ul-Haq and his secretary by members of a militant organization. The prosecution's case relied heavily on confessions obtained from the accused, which were ultimately deemed inadmissible. (Paras 2, 11)

Findings of Court:
The Special Court acquitted the accused due to lack of evidence and procedural violations in obtaining confessions, emphasizing the need for strict compliance with TADA provisions. (Paras 27, 28)

Issues: The main issues included the admissibility of confessions and the adequacy of evidence to support the prosecution's case. (Paras 11, 27)

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that confessions must be recorded in compliance with legal safeguards, and failure to do so undermines their admissibility. The prosecution's reliance on confessions without corroborating evidence was insufficient for conviction. (Paras 17, 27)

Result: Appeals dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

UJJAL BHUYAN, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1681 of 2009

This is an appeal under Section 19 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 by the State (CBI) assailing the judgment and order dated 20.04.2009 passed by the 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Jammu (briefly ‘the Special Court’ hereinafter). By the aforesaid judgment and order, the Special Court acquitted the respondents in CBI Case No. RC 5(S)/1990 for the offences under Sections 118, 302, 368 and 365 of the Ranbir Penal Code, 1932 (RPC) and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, hereinafter referred to as the TADA Act (since repealed).

2. Genesis of the case can be traced to FIR No. 55/1990 registered at Police Station Nageen, Srinagar under Sections 364, 341 and 120-B of RPC read with Section 3(2) of the TADA Act. The FIR was lodged on the basis of a complaint filed by Shri Ghulam Nabi Dar, a driver of Kashmir University. Informant alleged that on 06.04.1990 at about 04.20 pm, Dr. Mushir-ul-Haq, Vice Chancellor of Kashmir University, and his Personal Secretary Shri Abdul Gani Zargar were kidnapped by armed terrorists from their official car outside the Sadarbal Gate of the University. After taking them in the said vehicle for a short distance towards Lal Bazar on Sadarbal Road, they were shifted to a red Maruti van and taken away.

2.1 Subsequently, dead bodies of Dr. Mushir-ul- Haq and Shri Abdul Gani Zargar were recovered on 10.04.1990. As a result, Section 302 RPC and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (‘Arms Act’ hereinafter) were added to the FIR.

2.2 Investigation of the case was transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on the request of the Jammu and Kashmir Government. On the CBI taking over investigation, the case was re-registered as RC 5 (S)/90-SIU.V on 21.04.1990 under Sections 302, 341 and 364 RPC read with Section 3 of the TADA Act and Sections 3/25 of the Arms Act.

2.3 Investigation revealed that Hilal Beg was the self-styled Chief Commander of a banned militant organization called Jammu & Kashmir Students Liberation Front (JKSLF). He along with other members of JKSLF, including accused Javed Shala, Tahir Ahmed Mir, Mushtaq Ahmed Sheikh, Mushtaq Ahmed Khan, Mohd. Hussain Khan and Mohd. Salim Zargar entered into a conspiracy between 31.03.1990 and 06.04.1990 to kidnap Dr. Mushir-ul-Haq, the Vice-Chancellor of Kashmir University and others to strike terror in the minds of the public, thereby to compel the Government to release their associates, viz, Nissar Ahmed Jogi, Gulam Nabi Bhat and Fayyaz Ahmed Wani. The conspiracy included execution of the hostages if their demands were not met.

2.4 On 06.04.1990, at approximately 09.00 a.m., the accused persons grouped together at Aftab’s house. They left the house of Aftab in a red Maruti van bearing registration No. JKD-9394 and proceeded towards Kashmir University. They were fully armed. At about 01.20 p.m., the accused persons saw the car of the Vice- Chancellor coming out of the University campus towards the Sadarbal Gate. The vehicle had to stop as the gate was being opened. As it came out from the gate, some of the accused persons forcibly got inside the car of the Vice-Chancellor brandishing their weapons. They overpowered the driver, the Vice-Chancellor, his Personal Secretary and Jamadar, Malook Khan. The vehicle of the Vice-Chancellor was driven towards the Sadarbal side followed by accused Javed Shala and Mushtaq Sheikh in the red Maruti van.

2.5 After travelling some distance, the said vehicle was stopped whereafter the accused persons forced the Vice-Chancellor and his Personal Secretary to come out of the car. The Vice-Chancellor and his Personal Secretary were thereafter taken to the red Maruti van. Subsequently the two kidnapped persons were taken to different locations and ultimately were taken to the residence of Mohd. Sadiq Rather at Natipura. From there the two kidnapped persons were shifted to the house of accused S

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

        Please visit our Training & Support
        Center or Contact Us for assistance

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top