1990 Kashmir University VC Murder Case | 'TADA Procedural Safeguards Violated' : Supreme Court Dismisses CBI Appeals Against Acquittals
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the CBI challenging the acquittal of seven persons in the case for the abduction and murder of Kashmir University Vice Chancellor and his Personal Secretary in 1990 by the Jammu & Kashmir Students Liberation Front
The Court affirmed the acquittal of the accused persons citing a lack of credible evidence and procedural lapses in recording confessions.
The Court held that the confessional statements were unreliable and failed to meet the procedural safeguards under the Terrorism and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, as the recording officer failed to ensure the voluntariness of the accused while taking confessions.
A bench of Justices Abay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan observed, “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the victims and the accused, remained elusive, and it is not for nothing that such draconian provisions have since been repealed.”
The Court said that the statements of the accused did not contain the time of recording of the confession or indicate from where they were produced. The Court also noted that no time was given to the accused for reflection before the recording of the confessional statements, which vitiated the said statements.
It further stated that there was nothing on record to suggest that the witness who recorded the statement was authorized to do so. The Court held that the procedure laid down in the Kartar Singh judgment regarding the recording of confessional statements under the TADA was violated.
"Kartar Singh (supra) says that confession should be recorded in a free atmosphere. 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 has come on record 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 Court lamented that the "the procedural safeguards were given a complete go-bye."
The Court noted that the Special Court had stopped short of observing that it was a case of abuse of power and authority, and that the procedural safeguards were completely disregarded.
The Court also added that the failure to recover the murder weapon (AK-47 rifle) seriously damaged the prosecution's case, weakening forensic evidence. The forensic witness had testified that he had not seen the AK-47 rifle from which the cartridges were fired.
The Court underlined that witnesses could not identify the accused, making their testimony unreliable. The witnesses described the kidnappers as young men with moustaches but could not identify them.
BACKGROUND:
In 1990, armed militants kidnapped the Vice-Chancellor of Kashmir University Dr. Mushir-ul- Haqand his personal secretaryAbdul Gani Zargar outside the university's gate. The kidnappers shifted them to another vehicle and later took them to multiple locations. The Jammu & Kashmir Students Liberation Front (JKSLF) was behind the abduction, demanding the release of three militants in exchange for the hostages.
When the government refused to comply, the accused allegedly shot both hostages dead with an AK-47 rifle. The case was initially investigated by local police but was later transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The accused were charged under various sections of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) and the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA).
The Special Court had rejected the confessional statements of the accused persons and acquitted them, leading to the present appeal.
The counsel for the appellant argued that the Special Court wrongly rejected the confessional statements of the accused persons despite following TADA procedures. It was contended that the confessions were voluntary and recorded by a police officer of the rank of Superintendent of Police, as mandated under Section 15 of the TADA Act.
The counsel for the respondent argued that the confessional statements were inadmissible, as they were recorded without ensuring voluntariness, violating TADA Rules and Supreme Court guidelines in the Kartar Singh case.
It was also argued that no time was given to the accused for reflection before recording the statement, and the prosecution had failed to produce independent witnesses linking the accused to the crime.
The court did not find any reason to interfere with the decision arrived at by the Special Court and accordingly dismissed the appeal.
The appeals filed against the acquittals of Mohd Salim Zargar @ Fayaz, Mushtaq Ahmed Khan @ Pappan Thantre, Shabir Bhat, Abdul Aziz Dar, GH Qadir Mir, Mohd Sadiq Rather and Tahir Ahmed Meer were dismissed.
APPEARANCE:
Senior Advocate Sonia Mathur, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR For CBI
Sr Adv Kamini Jaiswal, AOR Ms. Rani Mishra, Adv For Respondents
Case-Title: State (CBI) Vs Mohd. Salim Zargar @ Fayaz & Ors
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 337