Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2.6 Accused Hilal Beg claimed responsibility for the abduction of Dr. Mushir-ul-Haq, the Vice- Chancellor, and his Personal Secretary Abdul Gani Zargar. In this connection, accused Hilal Beg issued a press release.

2.7 As the Government did not comply with their demand, accused Hilal Beg and his associates convened a meeting on 09.04.1990 at 03.00 p.m. to decide the fate of the hostages.

2.8 On 10.04.1990, the two hostages were taken to a field. Accused Salim Zargar fired upon with an AK- 47 rifle causing multiple bullet injuries on their persons as a result of which both of them died on the spot. Local police came to the crime scene and recovered 9 empty cartridges of an AK-47 rifle but the AK-47 rifle could not be recovered. On conclusion of investigation (after transfer of the same to the CBI), charge sheet was filed implicating Hilal Beg, Javed Ahmed Shala, Mushtaq Ahmed Sheikh, Mohd. Salim Zargar, Mohd. Hussain Khan, Aftab Lach Khan, Mushtaq Ahmed Khan, Shabir Butt, Hilal Sheikh, Mohammad Ashraf Butt and Gulam Qadir Mir as the accused for committing an offence under Sections 120B read with Section 365 RPC. All the above, except Aftab Lach Khan, were accused of committing an offence punishable under Sections 3(1) and 3(3) of the TADA Act. Accused Aftab Lach Khan was charged with committing an offence under Section 3(3) of the TADA Act. Additionally, Hilal Beg, Javed Ahmed Shala, Mushtaq Ahmed Sheikh, Mohd. Salim Zargar, Mushtaq Ahmed Khan and Tahir Mir were charged under Section 4(2) of the TADA Act. Accused Mohd. Salim Zargar was further charged for committing an offence punishable under Section 302 RPC while accused Hilal Beg was charged under Section 32 read with Section 34 of the RPC.

4. Aggrieved thereby, appellant (State) has approached this Court by filing criminal appeal under Section 19 of the TADA Act, being Crl. Appl. No. 1681/2009. Crl. Appl. No. 1681/2009 was admitted by this Court vide the order dated 28.08.2009.

5. We have heard Mrs. Sonia Mathur, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, learned counsel for the respondents.

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant- State submits that the Special Court relied on a previous decision dated 21.12.2002 in the case of State through CBI Vs. Mohd. Salim Zargar wherein the confessional statement of Mohd. Salim Zargar was held to be inadmissible. In the present proceedings, besides the confessional statement of Mohd. Salim Zargar, there were confessional statements of two other accused persons, namely, Mushtaq Ahmed Khan and Mohd. Sadiq Rather. However, the confessional statements of both the accused persons were rejected due to the following reasons:

1

(1994) 3 SCC 569 6.7 That apart, it is further submitted that the confessional statement of Mohd. Salim Zargar was additionally recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC) which was duly exhibited during the trial.

6.8 Thus, the confessional statements of Mohd. Salim Zargar, Mushtaq Ahmed Khan and Mohd. Sadiq Rather were recorded following the legal procedure mandated by the statute. Therefore, the Special Court was not at all justified in discarding the confessional statements of the abovenamed accused persons. On the basis of such confessional statements, the guilt of the accused persons stood conclusively established. In the circumstances, learned Senior Counsel submits that the appeal may be allowed setting aside the impugned judgment of the Special Court.

respondents submits that Special Court had acquitted all the accused persons as the only actionable evidence were the alleged confessional statements of the three accused persons. In so far the confessional statement of Mohd. Salim Zargar is concerned, the same was already rejected by the Special Court vide the judgment and order dated 21.12.2002 in a separate TADA proceeding. No appeal was preferred by the CBI against the said acquittal order which was passed following rejection of the confessional statement of Mohd. Salim Zargar. Thus, the said finding had become final. In the present proceeding, prosecution relied upon the same confessional statement which was rightly rejected by the Special Court.