Gyan Sudha Misra ORDER
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. 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.
3. The facts have already been set out in the impugned judgment and hence we are not repeating the same here except wherever necessary.
4. 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 Superintendent of Police in which he is said to have identified the house of the deceased.
5. Confession to a police officer is inadmissible vide Section 25 of the Evidence Act, but it is admissible in TADA cases vide Section 15 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987.
6. 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 from the alleged accused. Hence, the courts have to be cautious in accepting confessions made to the police by the alleged accused.
7. Unfortunately, the police in our country are not trained in 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 confession under torture.
8. Torture is such a terrible thing that when a person is under torture he will confess to almost any crime. Even Joan of Arc confessed to be a witch under torture. Hence, where the prosecution case mainly rests on the confessional statement made to the police by the alleged accused, in the absence of corroborative material, the courts must be hesitant before they accept such extra-judicial confessional statements.
9. In the instant case, the prosecution case mainly relies on the alleged confessional statement of the Appellant made before the Superintendent of Police, which is an extra-judicial confession and there is absence of corroborative material. Therefore, we are of the opinion that it will not be safe to convict the accused on the basis of alleged confessional statement.
10. For the reasons stated above, we are in agreement with the impugned judgment so far as it has taken the view that the confessional statement in question cannot be acted upon as the sole basis for conviction of the Appellant.
11. However, the TADA Court has convicted the Appellant under Section 3(5) of the TADA which makes mere membership of a banned organisation criminal. Although the Appellant has denied that he was a member of ULFA, which is a banned organisation. Even assuming he was a member of ULFA it has not been proved that he was an active member and not a mere passive member.
12. In State of Kerala v. Raneef 