Even though the confession by an accused under repealed anti-terror law Tada is recognised an independent evidence, the Supreme Court has given a new interpretation to its evidentiary value, terming it a “very weak evidence” because the police in Indian is known for extracting confessional statements by using third-degree methods.
“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 accused. Hence, the courts have to be cautious in accepting confessions made to the police,” Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra ruled. Stating that the confession though “is admissible” in Tada cases under section 15 of the anti-terror law, which stood repealed in 1995, but the top court raised serious doubts about the veracity of any confession recorded by the police and termed it only an “extra-judicial confession”, which needed to be corroborated by other evidence.
The new interpretation on the evidentiary value of the confession under Tada assumes significance as the top court is still seized of hundreds of terror cases, preceded under the Act before it was repealed. These include the cases of nearly 100 convicted in the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts cases. under Tada.
“Unfortunately, the police in our country are not trained in scientific investigation, nor are they provided the technical equipment for scientific investigation, hence to obtain a conviction they often rely on the easy short cut of procuring a confession under torture,” the court said.
“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,” the top court ruled.
The important ruling came on an appeal of Arup Bhuyan, convicted by a Guwahati special Tada court under the anti-terror law on March 28, 2007 in an alleged terror attack case, describing him a member of banned militant outfit Ulfa.
The apex court pointed out that Bhuyan during trial had denied his confession made to the superintendent of police and said he was not involved in any way the activities of the Ulfa.