Procedural Safeguards Were Given A Complete Go-Bye: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal Of JKSLF Members In TADA Case
The Supreme Court dismissed Criminal Appeal filed under Section 19 of TADA Act by the State (CBI) against the Judgment of the Sessions Judge, Jammu.
Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has upheld the acquittal of the members of a banned militant organization Jammu & Kashmir Students Liberation Front (JKSLF) in relation to 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 (TADA Act).
The Court was hearing a Criminal Appeal filed under Section 19 of TADA Act by the State (CBI) i.e., Central Bureau of Investigation against the Judgment of the Sessions Judge, Jammu, which acquitted the accused persons.
The two-Judge Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed, “The Legislature had reposed great faith in the fairness and uprightness of the higher police officials in the rank of SP and above while conferring the drastic power of recording confessional statements of the accused persons upon them making the same admissible in evidence subject to fulfillment of the procedural safeguards. But we are afraid, in so far the present case is concerned, the procedural safeguards were given a complete go-bye.”
Senior Advocate Sonia Mathur appeared on behalf of the Appellant/CBI while AOR Kamini Jaiswal appeared on behalf of the Respondents/Accused.
Facts of the Case
An FIR was registered under Sections 364, 341, and 120-B of RPC read with Section 3(2) of the TADA Act based on a Complaint filed by a driver of Kashmir University. As per the allegations, in 1990, Dr. Mushir-ul-Haq, Vice Chancellor of Kashmir University, and his Personal Secretary 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 allegedly shifted to a red van and taken away. Subsequently, their dead bodies were recovered and resultantly, Section 302 RPC and Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 were added to the FIR.
The investigation of the case was transferred to CBI on the request of the Jammu and Kashmir Government. Investigation revealed that Hilal Beg was the self-styled Chief Commander of a banned militant organization called Jammu & Kashmir Students Liberation Front (JKSLF) who along with other members i.e., the Respondents, entered into a conspiracy to kidnap the deceased and others to strike terror in the minds of the public, thereby to compel the Government to release their associates. The conspiracy allegedly included execution of the hostages if their demands were not met. The Special Court acquitted the accused persons holding that the prosecution could not prove their guilt and hence, the State approached the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, remarked, “The Special Court has stopped short of observing that it was a case of abuse of power and authority. It is indeed a sad reflection as to how investigation and trial unfolded in this case where truth and justice, both for the victims and the accused, remained elusive. It is not for nothing that such draconian provisions have since been repealed. We say this and no more.”
The Court said that the confessional statements so recorded were not accepted by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate whereafter those were sent directly to the Special Court which again is an infraction of the statute.
“The memorandum appended to their confessional statements did not contain the time of recording of confession and from where they were produced; and also as to whether any time was given to the said respondents for reflection before recording of the confessional statements. This is a most crucial omission which has completely vitiated the confessional statements”, it also noted.
The Court further observed that since the confessional statements of two Respondents were recorded on the same day of production, hardly any or no time was given to them for reflection which has completely vitiated the said two confessional statements.
“… we do not find any error or infirmity in the view taken by the Special Court in acquitting the respondents. This is not even a case of plausible view. No other view is possible”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the Apex Court dismissed the Appeal and upheld the acquittal of the accused persons.
Cause Title- State (CBI) v. Mohd. Salim Zargar @ Fayaz & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 376)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Sonia Mathur and AOR Mukesh Kumar Maroria.
Respondents: AOR Kamini Jaiswal and Advocate Rani Mishra.
