"Procedural Safeguards Were Given a Complete Go-Bye": Supreme Court Rejects CBI’s TADA Appeals, Highlights ‘Serious Doubt’ Over Confessions Recorded in ‘Daunting and Overbearing’ Conditions
Safiya Malik
The Supreme Court has dismissed two criminal appeals filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), confirming the acquittal of multiple accused under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA Act) and the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC). The Division Bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held that the confessional statements recorded under Section 15 of the TADA Act were inadmissible due to procedural violations and evidentiary shortcomings.
The case arose from a kidnapping incident that took place on 6 April 1990 at around 4:20 PM. FIR No. 55/1990 was registered at Police Station Nageen, Srinagar, under Sections 364, 341, and 120-B RPC read with Section 3(2) of the TADA Act. Upon discovery of the bodies of Dr. Mushir-ul-Haq, Vice-Chancellor of Kashmir University, and his Personal Secretary, Abdul Gani Zargar, Section 302 RPC and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act were added. The prosecution case was that the conspiracy was formulated between 31 March 1990 and 6 April 1990. The investigation was later handed over to the CBI, which registered RC 5(S)/90-SIU.V.
The prosecution alleged that the accused were members of the Jammu & Kashmir Students Liberation Front (JKSLF) who conspired to kidnap and murder the victims to secure the release of detained militants. A separate CBI case (RC 6(S)/90-SIU.V) concerning the killing of Mr. H.L. Khera, General Manager of HMT Watch Factory, was also referenced, but heard separately as Criminal Appeal No. 1770 of 2009.
The prosecution charged the accused under Sections 118, 302, 368, and 365 RPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the TADA Act. During the trial, the prosecution relied primarily on confessional statements recorded under Section 15 of the TADA Act by PW-12, a Superintendent of Police. It was submitted that “the confessions of the accused persons were voluntary, true and those corroborated with each other.” Additionally, the prosecution submitted that Mohd. Salim Zargar’s confession was also recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.
The Supreme Court noted that accused Tahir Ahmed Mir was discharged on 22 April 2000 and that accused Hilal Beg died during the trial’s pendency. The Court recorded that Hilal Beg had publicly claimed responsibility for the incident through a press release issued after the murders.
The respondents challenged the voluntariness of the confessions, arguing that they were recorded in intimidating locations such as BSF camp Srinagar, Joint Interrogation Centre (JIC) Srinagar, and JIC Kot Bhalwal, Jammu. It was submitted that “no time for reflection was provided” and that confessions were recorded “on the same day” as the accused were produced before the recording officer. The defense also argued that PW-12 lacked authorization from the State Government.
The Supreme Court recorded, “Recording of confessional statements in a heavily guarded BSF camp or in a JIC where the atmosphere for an accused would generally be daunting and overbearing cannot be said to be in a free atmosphere.” It further noted that “no evidence was led to show that the Recording Officer was specially authorized by the State Government as required under Section 15.”
Additionally, the Court recorded, “There is no mention where the confession was recorded. Further, the time when the confession was recorded was not mentioned.” A date discrepancy was also recorded: “The certificate appended to the confession shows the date as 16.09.1990, but PW-12 stated the confession was recorded on 06.08.1990.”
The Court observed that “the confessions were recorded on the same day the accused persons were produced before the Recording Officer,” meaning that “no contemporaneous document is produced on record to show that time for reflection was granted.” It also recorded that there were no questions and answers reflecting the voluntariness of the statements.
The Court examined the testimonies of eyewitnesses PW-2 Ghulam Mohiuddin Khan, PW-3 Molu Khan, and PW-6 Ghulam Nabi Dar. It recorded, “PW-2, PW-3 and PW-6 did not identify the kidnappers,” noting that they described the assailants as “young men with moustaches” but failed to identify the accused at trial.
Regarding the roles of the accused, the Court observed that Hilal Beg was described as “self-styled Chief Commander of JKSLF.” Mohd. Salim Zargar was alleged to have “opened fire with an AK-47 rifle,” while others were accused of guarding the hostages.
On forensic evidence, the Court recorded that PW-11 Roop Singh, Senior Scientific Officer, opined that bullets were fired from an AK-47 rifle. However, “no weapon of offence was recovered in this case,” and PW-11 admitted he “did not see the weapon from which the cartridges were fired.”
The Supreme Court addressed the issue estoppel argument in detail. It recorded, “The confessional statement of respondent No. 1 has already been rejected in another TADA case concerning the killing of B.K. Ganju.” It further stated, “Acceptance of the same confessional statement of respondent No. 1 would disturb the finding of fact already recorded in the previous criminal trial relating to the killing of one B.K. Ganju.”
The Court also recorded, “no material is produced to show that the confession was forwarded to the Chief Judicial Magistrate as required under Rule 15(5) of the TADA Rules.” It stated, “The Special Court was fully justified in rejecting the confessional statements and acquitting the accused persons.”
The Court noted non-acceptance of the confession by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, recording that the statements were directly forwarded to the Designated Court without being scrutinized by the Magistrate.
The Court referred to Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC 569, regarding the constitutional validity of Section 15 of the TADA Act, while citing Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab and Ravinder Singh v. Sukhbir Singh regarding mandatory compliance requirements.
It concluded, “We are afraid, in so far as the present case is concerned, the procedural safeguards were given a complete go-bye.”
The Court directed that the acquittal by the Special Court under TADA, Jammu, would stand. The Court recorded, “there is no merit in the criminal appeal which is accordingly dismissed.” The connected criminal appeal involving the killing of Mr. H.L. Khera was also dismissed.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellant: Sonia Mathur, Senior Advocate
For the Respondents: Kamini Jaiswal, Advocate
Case Title: State (CBI) v. Mohd. Salim Zargar @ Fayaz & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 376
Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 1681 of 2009 with Criminal Appeal No. 1770 of 2009
Bench: Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
[Read/Download order]
