Supreme Court upholds acquittals in TADA-era kidnapping‑murder trials, finds confessional statements vitiated

A bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan heard appeals under Section 19 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA) filed by the State (CBI) challenging the Special Court’s acquittal of several accused in two long‑running cases arising from the 1990 kidnappings and murders in Jammu & Kashmir.

The Court dismissed the appeals and affirmed the Special Court’s findings of acquittal, holding that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that confessional statements recorded by police officers under Section 15 of the TADA Act were vitiated by non‑compliance with statutory safeguards. The Court reiterated that TADA confessions were an “exceptional” departure from general criminal evidence rules and must meet strict procedural requirements. The Court, in its reasoning, 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. 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 It is not for nothing that such draconian provisions have since been repealed.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 added that “This is not even a case of plausible view. No other view is possible,” when upholding the Special Court’s decision.

Background The matters arose from two separate 1990 FIRs in Srinagar: one relating to the kidnapping and subsequent deaths of Dr. Mushir‑ul‑Haq, Vice‑Chancellor of Kashmir University, and his personal secretary Abdul Gani Zargar; the other concerning the abduction and killing of H.L. Khera, General Manager, HMT Watch Factory. Following recovery of the bodies, the Jammu & Kashmir Government transferred investigations to the CBI and multiple accused were charged under Ranbir Penal Code provisions and under Sections 3 and 4 of the TADA Act (since repealed). Forensic evidence confirmed deaths from AK‑47 bullets, but the weapon was not recovered and eyewitnesses could not identify the persons later produced in court.

Prosecution relied heavily on confessional statements recorded by Superintendent of Police A.K. Suri (PW‑12/PW‑3 in respective appeals). The Special Court rejected the impugned confessions — including one earlier rejected in a separate trial involving Mohd. Salim Zargar — and acquitted the accused, observing that statutory and judicial safeguards surrounding recording of TADA confessions were not met. The State challenged the acquittals before this Court, arguing that Section 15 of TADA and Rule 15 of the TADA Rules permitted admission of voluntary confessions recorded by an SP and that the recordings here satisfied the requirements.

In detailed reasoning, the Supreme Court reviewed Section 15 and Rule 15, the Constitution Bench guidelines in Kartar Singh, and subsequent authorities such as SN Dube and Ajit Singh. The Court found multiple material defects: confessions were recorded in heavily guarded locations (BSF camps and Joint Interrogation Centres), timestamps and contemporaneous question‑and‑answer records were missing, no evidence showed any meaningful “cooling‑off” or reflection time, authorization for the SP to record statements was not placed on record, and one confession had already been judicially rejected in an earlier proceeding—invoking the principle of issue estoppel. On these grounds the Court held the confessions inadmissible and sustained acquittals. Both criminal appeals (Crl. Appl. No. 1681/2009 and Crl. Appl. No. 1770/2009) were dismissed.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 376 (Criminal Appeal Nos. 1681 of 2009 & 1770 of 2009) Case Title: State (CBI) v. Mohd. Salim Zargar @ Fayaz & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mrs. Sonia Mathur, Senior Counsel (for State/CBI) For the Respondent(s): Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Counsel (for respondents)