- Case
- STATE (CBI) v. MOHD. SALIM ZARGAR @ FAYAZ (Supreme Court of India, 20-03-2025)
- Law
- Arms Act, Code of Criminal Procedure, Indian Evidence Act.
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987: Section 19 is mentioned as the provision under which the appeals were filed by the State (CBI) assailing the judgment and order of the Special Court. The judgment extensively discusses Section 15 of the TADA Act, which provides for the admissibility of certain confessions made to police officers, notwithstanding anything in the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Indian Evidence Act. The judgment analyzes the requirements of Section 15, including the rank of the police officer recording the confession (not lower than Superintendent of Police), the explanation to be given to the person making the confession (that they are not bound to make a confession and that it may be used as evidence against them), and the requirement that the police officer has reason to believe that the confession is being made voluntarily. Section 3(1) of the TADA Act is mentioned in relation to Criminal Appeal No. 1770 of 2009, concerning the offences for which the respondents were acquitted. Sections 3 and 4 of the TADA Act are mentioned as the sections under which the accused were charged. Section 4(2) of the TADA Act is mentioned as the section under which some of the accused were charged.
TADA Rules: Rule 15 of the TADA Rules is extensively discussed, outlining the procedure for recording confessions made to police officers under Section 15 of the TADA Act. The judgment analyzes the requirements of Rule 15, including the language in which the confession must be recorded, the requirement that the confession be shown, read, or played back to the person concerned, the requirement that the confession be signed by the person making it and the police officer, and the requirement that the police officer make a memorandum at the end of the confession. The judgment also discusses sub-rule 3(b) of Rule 15, which mandates the police officer recording a confession to append a memorandum at the end of the confession. The judgment also discusses Rule 15(3) of the TADA Rules reflecting the officer's satisfaction regarding the voluntariness of the confessions. The judgment also mentions Rule 15(5) regarding sending the confession to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
Ranbir Penal Code, 1932 (RPC): Sections 118, 302, 368, and 365 of the RPC are mentioned as the offences for which the respondents were acquitted in CBI Case No. RC 5(S)/1990. Sections 364, 341, and 120-B of the RPC are mentioned in relation to FIR No. 55/1990. Section 302 RPC is mentioned as being added to the FIR after the recovery of dead bodies. Sections 302, 341 and 364 RPC are mentioned as the sections under which the case was re-registered as RC 5 (S)/90-SIU.V. Sections 120B read with Section 365 RPC are mentioned as the offence for which the accused were charged. Section 302 RPC is mentioned as the offence punishable under which accused Mohd. Salim Zargar was further charged. Section 32 read with Section 34 of the RPC is mentioned as the section under which accused Hilal Beg was charged. Sections 120B, 302, 368 and 364 of the RPC are mentioned in relation to Criminal Appeal No. 1770 of 2009.
Arms Act, 1959: Section 3/25 of the Arms Act is mentioned as being added to the FIR after the recovery of dead bodies. Sections 3/25 of the Arms Act are mentioned as the sections under which the case was re-registered as RC 5 (S)/90-SIU.V.
Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Section 25 of the Evidence Act is mentioned, stating that a confession made to a police officer by a person accused of an offence shall not be proved against him. The judgment notes that Section 15 of the TADA Act is a clear departure from the general law that a statement made to a police officer is not permissible in evidence under Section 25 of the Evidence Act.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): Section 164 of the Cr.PC is mentioned in relation to recording judicial confessions. Section 300 CrPC is mentioned in the context of the principle of issue estoppel.
General Principles of Law: The judgment discusses the principle of issue estoppel, explaining that it applies where an issue of fact has been tried by a competent court on a former occasion, and a finding has been reached in favor of an accused. The judgment also discusses the constitutional and fundamental right against testimonial compulsion. The judgment emphasizes the importance of procedural safeguards in the context of confessional statements.
