Confessions Taken in Fortified Interrogation Centres Without Cooling-Off Time Are Vitiated: Supreme Court Rejects CBI’s Appeal in 1990 Kashmir Terror Case, Upholds Acquittal of Accused

Procedural Safeguards Were Given a Complete Go-By - Supreme Court of India delivered a significant judgment in State (CBI) v. Mohd. Salim Zargar @ Fayaz & Ors., affirming the acquittal of the accused in the 1990 abduction and killing of Dr. Mushir-ul-Haq, the then Vice-Chancellor of Kashmir University, and his Personal Secretary, Abdul Gani Zargar. The Court dismissed the appeal filed by the State under Section 19 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA), holding that the prosecution’s case was fatally flawed due to procedural violations and lack of substantive evidence.

"No Other View Is Possible": Supreme Court Declares Acquittal Unassailable
The apex court, speaking through Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, concluded that the findings of the Special Court which acquitted the accused were not just plausible, but the only permissible conclusion on the record. The Court refused to interfere, stating unequivocally that:
“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.”

"The Only Evidence Was Tainted Confessions—No Eyewitness Identified the Accused": Supreme Court Criticises Prosecution's Glaring Weaknesses
The genesis of the case lay in the abduction and cold-blooded execution of Dr. Mushir-ul-Haq and his secretary on 10 April 1990, allegedly by members of the Jammu & Kashmir Students Liberation Front. Despite the gravity of the offence, the prosecution failed to produce any reliable eyewitness evidence linking the accused to the crime. Key witnesses including the driver of the Vice-Chancellor's vehicle were unable to identify any accused in court.
The Court observed that: “The evidence of the eyewitnesses did not materially assist the prosecution. No identification of the accused was made. The murder weapon—an AK-47 rifle—was never recovered.”
This left the prosecution relying entirely on three confessional statements of Mohd. Salim Zargar, Mushtaq Ahmed Khan, and Mohd. Sadiq Rather, all of which the Special Court had earlier discarded—and which the Supreme Court now reaffirmed as inadmissible.

"Confessions Were Not Recorded in a Free Atmosphere—Safeguards Under Section 15 and Rule 15 Were Ignored": Supreme Court Reiterates Compliance Mandate Under TADA
While the TADA Act permitted admissibility of confessions made to a police officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police, the Supreme Court underscored that such power is not absolute, and that strict procedural compliance is mandatory.
The Court found that:
•    Confessions were recorded on the same day as production, without providing the accused any cooling-off time.
•    The recording officer, Shri A.K. Suri (PW-12), failed to note essential details such as time, place, or authority for production.
•    Confessions were recorded in fortified military locations like BSF camps and Joint Interrogation Centres, which, the Court said, “cannot be said to be a free atmosphere.”
“The Legislature had reposed great faith in the fairness and uprightness of senior police officials… But in the present case, the procedural safeguards were given a complete go-by.”
“It is not for nothing that such draconian provisions have since been repealed.”

"Confession Previously Rejected Cannot Be Relied Upon Again—Issue Estoppel Applies": Supreme Court Rules on Legal Finality of Earlier Acquittal
The confession of Mohd. Salim Zargar had already been held inadmissible in a prior judgment dated 21 December 2002, in a separate TADA case concerning the killing of B.K. Ganju. The Supreme Court held that this earlier finding had attained finality and the principle of issue estoppel barred the prosecution from reopening the same question in a fresh trial. The Court explained:
“Acceptance of the same confessional statement of respondent No. 1 would disturb the finding of fact already recorded in the previous criminal trial. The statement is clearly vitiated.”

"The TADA Confessions Were Neither Voluntary Nor Truthful—Statutory and Constitutional Violations Are Clear"
Citing the landmark Constitution Bench decision in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, the Court emphasised that confessions under TADA must be recorded with utmost procedural fidelity, failing which they are inadmissible.
In this case, the Court found:
•    No questions and answers were recorded to determine voluntariness.
•    No justification was provided for why the confessions were recorded by the supervising officer himself.
•    No submission to the Chief Judicial Magistrate was made as required under Rule 15(5).
The Court stated: “Such confessional statements, taken under compelling circumstances, recorded hastily, and bereft of procedural compliance, cannot sustain conviction under TADA or the ordinary penal law.”

"The Prosecution Failed to Establish Any Link Between the Accused and the Crime—Even Under Ordinary Criminal Law Standards"
Not only were the TADA-specific safeguards flouted, but the Court also found that the prosecution had failed under even general principles of the Indian Penal Code and Evidence Act. No recovery, no direct link, and no eyewitness support existed. The case was held together by nothing more than procedurally invalidated confessions.

"This Case Is a Sad Reflection on the Abuse of Power and Procedural Lapses—Justice Remained Elusive for Victims and Accused Alike"
In a telling remark, the Court lamented how the very promise of justice failed due to investigative misconduct and procedural non-compliance. It concluded:
“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.”

The Court dismissed both appeals filed by the CBI, affirming the acquittals in the killings of Dr. Mushir-ul-Haq and Abdul Gani Zargar as well as Shri H.L. Khera, and ruled that the confessional statements that formed the core of the prosecution’s case were inadmissible and fatally defective.

Date of Decision: March 20, 2025