TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>SC Overturns Conviction: Uncorroborated Confessions Unsafe, Membership in Banned Group Not a Crime Without Violence.</h1> <h3>Arup Bhuyan Versus State of Assam</h3> The SC set aside the judgment of the Designated Court in TADA Sessions Case No. 13 of 1991, allowing the appeal. The SC ruled that the conviction based on ... - Issues involved: Appeal against impugned judgment of Designated Court in TADA Sessions Case No. 13 of 1991.Confessional Statement Issue:The Appellant, alleged to be a member of ULFA, had an alleged confessional statement made before the Superintendent of Police. While such confessions are inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, they are admissible in TADA cases under Section 15 of the TADA Act. However, confessions are considered weak evidence due to the prevalence of coercive methods by the police in obtaining them. In this case, the prosecution heavily relied on the extra-judicial confessional statement without corroborative evidence, leading the Supreme Court to conclude that it would not be safe to convict the accused based solely on this statement.Membership of Banned Organization Issue:The TADA Court convicted the Appellant under Section 3(5) of the TADA Act for mere membership of a banned organization, ULFA. However, the Supreme Court referenced precedents from the U.S. Supreme Court to reject the notion of 'guilt by association.' Mere membership does not incriminate a person unless they engage in violence, incite violence, or disturb public peace through violent means. The Court emphasized that Section 3(5) must be interpreted in line with fundamental rights under the Constitution, and therefore, the conviction under this section was deemed unsustainable.Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment of the Designated Court and allowed the appeal. Additionally, the Court directed the release of the Appellant on bail, with the security furnished earlier being discharged. The judgment highlighted the importance of corroborative evidence in cases involving confessional statements and emphasized that mere membership of a banned organization does not make a person a criminal unless they engage in violent activities or incitement to violence.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
