ARUP BHUYAN versus STATE OF ASSAM

Citation: [2011] 2 S.C.R. 506 · Decided: 03-02-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MARKANDEY KATJU, GYAN SUDHA MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2011] 2 S.C.R. 506 
ARUP BHUYAN 
v. 
STATE OF ASSAM 
(Criminal Appeal No. 889 of 2007) 
FEBRUARY 03, 2011 
[MARKANDEY KAT JU AND MRS. GYAN SUDHA 
MISRA, JJ.] 
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 
C - ss. 3(5) and 15- Appellant, allegedly a member of ULFA, 
a banned organization - Conviction u/s 3(5) on basis of his 
alleged confessional statement made before the 
Superintendent of Police (SP) - Sustainability of - Held: 
Prosecution relied upon the alleged confessional statement 
D of the appellant before the SP which is an extra-judicial 
confession and there is absence of corroborative material -
Thus, it would not be safe to convict the appellant on the basis 
of alleged confessional statement - Though s. 3(5) makes 
mere membership of a banned organization criminal, s. 3(5) 
E cannot be read literally, otherwise it would violate Articles 19 
and 21 - Mere membership of a banned organization will not 
make a person a criminal unless he resorts to violence or 
incites people to violence or creates public disorder by 
violence or incitement to violence - Even assuming that the _ 
F appellant was a member of ULFA, it has not been proved that 
he was an active member and not a mere passive member 
- Thus, conviction u!s. 3(5) not sustainable - Constitution of 
India, 1950 - Articles 19 and 21. 
Evidence Act 1872 - s. 25 - Confession before police 
G official - Admissibility of - Held: Is inadmissible by virtue of 
s. 25 - However, it is admissible in TADA cases by virtue of 
s. 15 of the TADA - Confessioh is a very weak kind of 
evidence - In India, use of third degree methods by police 
for extracting confessions from the alleged accused is well 
H 
506 
. .. 
ARUP BHUYAN v. STATE OF ASSAM 
· 507 
known - Thus, where prosecution case mainly rests on the 
A 
confessional statement made to the police by the alleged 
· accused, in the absence of corroborative material, courts must 
be cautious in accepting extra-judicial confessional 
statements - Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) 
Act, 1987 - s. 15. 
B 
State of Kera/a vs. Raneef 2011 (1) SCALE 8 - relied 
on. 
· Kedar Nath vs. State of Bihar AIR 1962 SCC 955 -
referred to. 
Elfbrandt vs. Russell 384 U.S. 17(1966); Clarence 
Brandenburg vs. State of Ohio 395 U.S. 444 (1969); United 
States vs. Eugene Frank Robel 389 U.S. 258 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference: 
/ 
2011 (1) SCALE 8 
Reii~d on. 
Para 12 
384 U.S. 17(1966) 
Referred to. 
/ 
Para 12 
AIR 1962 sec 955 
Referred to. 
Para 12 
395 U.S. 444 (1969) 
Referred to. 
Para 13 
389 U.S. 258 
Referred to. 
Para 14 
CRIMINAL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appe.al 
No. 889 of 2007. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 28.3.2007 of the 
Designated Court, Assam at Guwahati in TADA Sessions 
c 
D 
E 
F 
Case No. 13 of 1991. 
G · 
Vijay Hansaria, Aseem Mehrotra, Abhijat P. Medh for the 
Appellant. 
Avijit Roy (for Corporate Law Group) for the Respondent. 
H 
508 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011) 2 S.C.R. 
A 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
Heard learned counsel for the parties. 
B 
This Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment 
of the Designated Court, Assam at Guwahati dated 28.03.2007 
passed in TADA Sessions Case No. 13 of 1991. 
The facts have already been set out in the impugned 
C judgment and hence we are not repeating the same here except 
wherever necessary. 
The appellant is alleged to be a member of ULFA and the 
only material produced by the prosecution against the appellant 
. is his alleged confessional statement made before the 
D Superintendent of Police in which he is said to have identified 
the house of the deceased. 
Confession to a police officer is inadmissible vide Section 
25 of the Evidence Act, but it is admissible in TADA cases vide 
E Section 15 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) 
Act, 1987. 
Confession is a very weak kind of evidence. As is well 
known, the wide spread and rampant practice in the police in 
India is to use third degree methods for extracting confessions 
F from the alleged accused. Hence, the courts have to be cautious 
in accepting confessions made to the police by the alleged 
accused. 
Unfortunately, the police in our country are not trained in 
G scientific investigation (as is the police in Western countries) 
nor are they provided the technical equipments for scientific 
investigation, hence to obtain a conviction they often rely on the 
easy short cut of procuring a confessio

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.