9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Confession to Police Officer as Evidence 2. Mere Membership of a Banned Organization 3. Constitutional Validity of Statutory Provisions Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: Confession to Police Officer as Evidence: The court noted that the facts of the case were similar to those in Arup Bhuyan vs. State of Assam. The only evidence against the appellant was his alleged confession made to a police officer, which was subsequently retracted and not corroborated by any other material. The court reiterated its stance from Arup Bhuyan's case, stating, "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 adequate corroborative material." Since no corroborative material was present, the confession alone was deemed insufficient for conviction. Mere Membership of a Banned Organization: The appellant was convicted under Section 3(5) of TADA, which criminalizes mere membership of a banned organization. The court referred to its judgment in Arup Bhuyan's case, emphasizing that "mere 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 does an act intended to create disorder or disturbance of public peace by resort to imminent violence." In the present case, there was no evidence showing that the appellant engaged in such acts. Thus, the court concluded that even if the appellant was a member of ULFA, it had not been proven that he was an active member. Constitutional Validity of Statutory Provisions: The court discussed the constitutional validity of statutory provisions that criminalize mere membership of a banned organization, such as Section 3(5) of TADA and Section 10 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. It cited various U.S. Supreme Court judgments, including Elfbrandt vs. Russell, which rejected the doctrine of "guilt by association." The court highlighted that these statutory provisions must be read in consonance with the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The court stated, "The Constitution is the highest law of the land and no statute can violate it." Therefore, to avoid unconstitutionality, the court read down these provisions, asserting that they should only apply to active members who engage in or incite violence. The court also referred to several precedents where statutes were read down to avoid unconstitutionality, such as Kedar Nath Singh vs. State of Bihar and Sunil Batra vs. Delhi Administration. It emphasized that "every effort should be made by the Court to try to uphold the validity of the statute, as invalidating a statute is a grave step." Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgment was set aside. The court reiterated the importance of corroborative evidence for confessions made to police officers, the distinction between active and passive membership of banned organizations, and the necessity to interpret statutory provisions in a manner that aligns with the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
|
