The Supreme Court has upheld the acquittal of six individuals previously accused of the 1990 abduction and murder of Kashmir University Vice-Chancellor Mushir-ul-Haq and his secretary Abdul Gani Zargar. The apex court cited significant procedural lapses in the recording of confessions under the now-defunct Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA).
In 2009, a special court in Jammu acquitted the accused, including Mohammad Salim Zargar, Mushtaq Ahmed Khan, Shabir Bhat, Abdul Aziz Dar, Qadir Mir, and Mohammad Sadiq Rather, also linking them to the separate case of Hindustan Machine Tools General Manager H L Khera’s abduction and murder. The Supreme Court’s recent judgment reaffirmed these acquittals, highlighting serious discrepancies in the handling of confessions.
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had argued that the accused were part of the banned Jammu and Kashmir Students Liberation Front, asserting their involvement in the killings was to instill terror. However, Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan pointed out that the investigation and trial process failed to serve justice, either for the victims or the accused.
The bench criticized the procedural approach under TADA, which allowed confessions recorded by police superintendents or higher ranks to be admissible in trials. In this case, confessions were recorded under duress at a Border Security Force (BSF) camp, and discrepancies in the recording dates raised questions about their validity. The court noted that the accused were not provided adequate time to reflect, a critical oversight that tainted the confessional statements.
Justice Bhuyan, authoring the judgment, referred to the landmark Supreme Court decision in Kartar Singh v State of Punjab, which mandates that confessions under TADA should be recorded in a free atmosphere. He remarked that recording statements in a “heavily-guarded BSF camp” did not meet this criterion, making the environment too intimidating for a fair procedure.
The judgment also highlighted a specific instance where the officer claimed to have recorded Mohammad Salim Zargar’s statement on the same day he was produced, yet the certificate appended stated a later date, showcasing a clear procedural violation that undermined the confession’s credibility.
