LexSTATE (CBI) versus MOHD. SALIM ZARGAR @ FAYAZ & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 156 : 2025 INSC 376 State (CBI) v. Mohd. Salim Zargar @ Fayaz & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 1681 of 2009) 20 March 2025 [Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the correctness of judgment and order of the Special Court acquitting the respondents for offences under Ranbir Penal Code, 1932 and Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987. Headnotes† Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 – ss.3, 4, 15, 19 – TADA Rules – r.15 – Recording of confessional statement – Non-compliance – Effect – Complaint alleging that Vice Chancellor of Kashmir University and his Personal Secretary were kidnapped by armed terrorists from their official car and subsequently, their dead bodies were recovered – Investigation by CBI revealed that the self-styled Chief Commander of banned militant organization, Jammu & Kashmir Students Liberation Front-JKSLF, along with other members, including accused, entered into a conspiracy to kidnap the deceased to strike terror in the minds of the public, thereby to compel the Government to release their associates, and execution of the hostages if their demands were not met – As the Government did not comply with their demand, hostages were taken to a field where accused-respondent no. 1 fired upon with AK-47 rifle causing multiple bullet injuries on their persons resulting in their death – Special Court discarded the ocular evidence and confessional statements of the accused being inadmissible in evidence and acquitted the accused holding that the prosecution could not prove the guilt of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt – Correctness: Held: Testimony of the prosecution witnesses coupled with non-recovery of the weapon of offence seriously damaged the prosecution case – As regards recording of confessional statement of respondent no. 1, there is clear departure from the norms which * Author [2025] 4 S.C.R. 157 State (CBI) v. Mohd. Salim Zargar @ Fayaz & Ors. renders the confession highly suspect – Record does not contain any statement in the form of questions and answers wherefrom it could be deciphered that respondent no.1 was making the confession voluntarily – Hardly any or no time for reflection was given which vitiated the said confessional statement – Also discrepancy in the date of recording of the confessional statement – This very confessional statement of respondent no.1 was deemed inadmissible and unreliable and rejected by the Special Court in a prior case – 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 killing of one – Also, said statement clearly vitiated by non-compliance with the procedural safeguards provided u/r.15 – Furthermore, confessional statements of respondent no.2 and respondent no.6 recorded in the same manner as the confessional statement of respondent no.1, hardly any or no time was given to them for reflection before recording confessional statement – Most crucial ommission completely vitiated the said two confessional statements – Procedural safeguards for recording confessional statement of accused given a complete go- bye – Special Court has stopped short of observing that it was a case of abuse of power and authority – No error or infirmity in the view taken by the Special Court in acquitting the respondents – Ranbir Penal Code, 1932 – ss.118, 120-B, 302, 341, 364, 368, 365 – Arms Act, 1959 – s.3/25. [Paras 11, 22.1-22.3, 24, 25, 25.1, 27, 28] Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 – s.15 – TADA Rules – r.15 – Provisions dealing with recording of confessional statement – Explained. [Paras 13, 14] Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 – ss.3(1), 19 – Incident relating to kidnapping and subsequent murder of General Manager of a company in Srinagar allegedly by the respondents after entering into a criminal conspiracy to strike terror in the minds of the general public and thereby to compel the Government to release their associates – Special Court acquitted the respondents for the offences u/s.3(1) of the TADA Act rw ss.120B, 302, 368 and 364 of the RPC – Challenge to: Held: Weapon of assault not recovered and eyewitnesses deposed that the respondents produced in court were not the accused persons – Entire prosecution case centered around the confessional
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.