SRI INDRA DAS versus STATE OF ASSAM

Citation: [2011] 4 S.C.R. 289 · Decided: 10-02-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MARKANDEY KATJU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
[2011) 4 S.C.R. 289 
SRI INDRA DAS 
V. 
STATE OF ASSAM 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1383 of 2007) 
FEBRUARY 10, 2011 
[MARKANDEY KAT JU AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.) 
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1.987 
- s.3(5) - Membership of banned organisation - Conviction 
A 
B 
of appellant u/s.3(5) -
Sustainability -
Held: Mere C 
membership of a banned organization cannot incriminate a 
person unless he is proved to have resorted to acts of violence 
or incited people to imminent violence, or did an act intended 
to create disorder or disturbance of public peace by resort to 
imminent violence - In the present case, even assuming that 
D 
accused-appellant was a member of ULFA- a banned 
organization, there was no evidence to show that he did acts 
of the nature above mentioned - Thus, rwen if he was a 
member of ULFA it was not proved that he was an active 
member and not merely a passive member - Further, the 
E 
provisions in various statutes i.e. 3 (5) of TADA or s.10 of the 
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) which on their plain language 
make mere membership of a banned organization criminal, 
have to be read down and one has to depart from the literal 
rule of interpretation in such cases, otherwise these provisions 
F 
will become unconstitutional as violative of Articles 19 and 21 
of the Constitution - Conviction of appellant accordingly set 
aside - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 19 and 21. 
Interpretation of Statutes - Reading down of a statute -
Held: The Constitution is the highest Jaw of the land and no G 
statute can violate it - If there is a statute which appears to 
violate it, one can either declare it unconstitutional or read it 
down to make it constitutional - The first attempt of the Court 
289 
H 
290 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 4 S.C.R. 
A should be try to sustain the validity of the statute by reading 
it down. 
Interpretation of Statutes -
~tatute violating fundamental 
rights - Held: Statutory provisions cannot be read in isolation, 
8 
but should be read in consonance with fundamental rights 
guaranteed by Constitution. 
Evidence - Confession - Nature of - Held: It is a very 
weak type of evidence, particularly when alleged to have been 
made to the police, and it is not safe to convict on its basis 
C unless there is adequate corroborative material. 
Five persons including the appellant were charged 
for the death of a person. The only evidence against the 
appellant was the alleged confession made by him to a 
D police officer. The said alleged confession was, however, 
subsequently retracted by the appellant and was not 
corroborated by any other material. The appellant was 
alleged to be a member of ULFA, a banned organisation, 
and convicted under Section 3(5) of the Terrorist and 
E Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 which makes 
mere membership of a banned organisation a criminal 
act, and sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment. 
The conviction of the appellant was challenged in the 
instant appeal. 
F 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:1. Confession is a very weak type of evidence, 
particularly when alleged to have been made to the police, 
and it is not safe to convict on its basis unless there is 
G adequate corroborative material. In the present case 
.there is no corroborative material. (Para 5) (296-E] 
2. In Arup Bhuyan's case, it was held that mere 
membership of a banned organization cannot incriminate 
a person unless he is proved to have resorted to acts of 
H 
SRI INDRA DAS v. STATE OF ASSAM 
291 
violence or incited people to imminent violence, or does 
A 
an act intended to create disorder or disturbance of 
public peace by resort to imminent violence. In the 
present case, even assuming that the appellant was a 
member of ULFA which is a banned organization, there 
is no evidence to show that he did acts of the nature 
B 
above mentioned. Thus, even if he was a member of 
ULFA it has not been proved that he was an active 
member and not merely a passive member. Hence the 
decision in Arup Bhuyan's case squarely applies in this 
case. [Para 7] (296-G-H; 297-A-B] 
c 
Arup Bhuyan vs. State of Assam; decision dated 3-2· 
2011 of Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.889 of 2007 
- held applicable. 
State of Kera/a vs. Raneef, 2011 (1) SCALE 8 - referred 
D 
to. 
Elfbrandt vs. Russell 384 US 17(1966); Schneiderman 
vs. U.S. 320 US 118(136); Sch ware vs. Board of Bar 
Examiners 353 US 232(246); Sea/es vs. U.S. 367 US 203 
E 
(229); Ap

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