The Supreme Court has upheld the acquittal of seven persons in the case related to the kidnapping and murder of Kashmir University Vice Chancellor and his Personal Secretary in 1990 by the Jammu & Kashmir Students Liberation Front.
The Bench of Justice Abay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan noted that the confessional statements were unreliable and did not meet the procedural safeguards under the Terrorism and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, as the recording officer failed to ensure the voluntariness of the accused while taking confessions.
The statements of the accused did not contain the time of recording of the confession or indicate from where they were produced, the Apex Court pointed out, adding that no time was given to the accused for reflection before the recording of the confessional statements, which vitiated the said statements.
The top court of the country further noted that there was nothing on record to suggest that the witness who recorded the statement was authorised to do so. The procedure laid down in the Kartar Singh judgment regarding the recording of confessional statements under the TADA was violated, it added.
As per the Kartar Singh verdict, the confession should be recorded in a free atmosphere, said the Apex Court.
After perusing the records, the Bench said in the present case, confessional statements were recorded in a heavily guarded BSF camp or in a JIC where the atmosphere for an accused would generally be daunting and overbearing. Such statements could not be said to be recorded in a free atmosphere.
The confessional statements so recorded were not accepted by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate whereafter those were sent directly to the Special Court, which again was an infraction of the statute, it added.
The top court of the country said the procedural safeguards were given a complete go-bye.
The Special Court had stopped short of observing that this was a case of abuse of power and authority, and that the procedural safeguards were completely disregarded, noted the Bench.
The Court also added that the failure to recover the murder weapon (AK-47 rifle) seriously damaged the prosecution’s case, weakening forensic evidence. The forensic witness had testified that he had not seen the AK-47 rifle from which the cartridges were fired.
The witnesses could not identify the accused, making their testimony unreliable. The witnesses described the kidnappers as young men with moustaches but could not identify them, it added.
The top court of the country observed that the investigation and trial in the case a sad reflection of how truth and justice remained elusive for both the victims and the accused.
Dismissing the appeals filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the Bench said it was for nothing that such draconian provisions have since been repealed.