Case Note & Summary
The case arises from the kidnapping and murder of Dr. Mushir-ul-Haq, Vice-Chancellor of Kashmir University, and his Personal Secretary Abdul Gani Zargar on 06.04.1990 by armed terrorists. The FIR was registered under various sections of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) and the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA). Investigation was transferred to the CBI, which filed a charge sheet against multiple accused, including the six respondents. The Special Court acquitted all accused on 20.04.2009, holding that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court discarded the ocular evidence of key witnesses (PW-2, PW-3, PW-6) and rejected the confessional statements of accused Mushtaq Ahmed Khan and Mohd. Sadiq Rather as inadmissible due to procedural lapses: the statements were not recorded in question-answer form, no record of voluntariness was maintained, no prior notice was given to the accused, and the confessions were recorded on the same day the accused were produced. The confessional statement of Mohd. Salim Zargar had already been held inadmissible in a previous decision. The State appealed under Section 19 of TADA. The Supreme Court heard arguments from both sides. The State argued that the confessions were voluntary and corroborated each other, and that the Recording Officer (PW-12) followed the procedure under Section 15 and Rule 15. However, the Court found that the Special Court's reasoning was sound and that the prosecution had not met the standard of proof. The appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal was upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - TADA - Confessional Statement - Section 15 TADA Act, 1987 and Rule 15 TADA Rules - Admissibility - Confessional statements recorded without following prescribed procedure (no question-answer format, no record of voluntariness, no prior notice to accused) are inadmissible - Held that the Special Court rightly rejected such confessions (Paras 6-6.2).
B) Criminal Law - TADA - Acquittal - Standard of Proof - Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt - Where ocular evidence is discarded and confessions are inadmissible, acquittal is justified - Held that the State failed to establish the case against the respondents (Paras 3.2, 6.2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Special Court was justified in rejecting the confessional statements of the accused persons and acquitting them for lack of evidence.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal of the respondents.
Law Points
- Confessional statement under TADA must be voluntary and recorded following Section 15 and Rule 15 procedure
- Inadmissible confession cannot be basis for conviction
- Acquittal upheld if prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt
Case Details
2025 LawText (SC) (3) 204
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1681 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1770 OF 2009
ABHAY S. OKA J. , UJJAL BHUYAN J.
2025 INSC 376, 2025 (4) SCR 156, 2025 AIR(SC) 1778, 2025 (2) GLT 49, 2025 (3) JKJ 179, 2025 CrLJ 1698
Sonia Mathur (for appellant), Kamini Jaiswal (for respondents)
MOHD. SALIM ZARGAR @ FAYAZ & ORS.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against acquittal under TADA Act
Remedy Sought
State (CBI) sought reversal of acquittal and conviction of respondents
Filing Reason
Special Court acquitted respondents for offences under RPC and TADA Act
Previous Decisions
Special Court acquitted all accused on 20.04.2009; confessional statement of Mohd. Salim Zargar held inadmissible in earlier decision dated 21.12.2002
Issues
Whether the confessional statements of Mushtaq Ahmed Khan and Mohd. Sadiq Rather were admissible under Section 15 TADA Act and Rule 15 TADA Rules
Whether the Special Court erred in acquitting the respondents despite alleged voluntary confessions
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant (State): Confessional statements were voluntary, truthful, and corroborated each other; Recording Officer followed procedure; conviction can be based solely on such confession.
Respondents: Confessional statements were inadmissible due to procedural lapses; prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi
Confessional statements recorded under TADA must strictly comply with Section 15 and Rule 15; failure to record in question-answer form, lack of record of voluntariness, and recording on same day as production render confessions inadmissible. Acquittal is justified when prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Judgment Excerpts
The Special Court discarded the ocular evidence of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-6 as well as the confessional statements of the accused which were held to be inadmissible in evidence.
No statements in the form of questions and answers were recorded by the Recording Officer to conclude that his satisfaction was based on sound material.
Procedural History
FIR No. 55/1990 registered on 06.04.1990; investigation transferred to CBI on 21.04.1990; charge sheet filed; Special Court framed charges on 22.04.2000; trial proceeded; accused Hilal Beg died; Special Court acquitted all accused on 20.04.2009; State appealed under Section 19 TADA on 28.08.2009; Supreme Court heard appeal and dismissed it.
Acts & Sections
- Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987: Section 3, Section 4, Section 15, Section 19, Section 3(2), Section 3(1), Section 3(3), Section 19, Section 15(2)
- Ranbir Penal Code, 1932: Section 118, Section 302, Section 341, Section 364, Section 365, Section 368, Section 120B, Section 32, Section 34
- Arms Act, 1959: Section 3, Section 25
- Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Rules: Rule 15, Rule 15(3)
- Code of Criminal Procedure: Section 164, Section 300, Section 300(2)
