JUDGMENT

Markandey Katju, J. —

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Service of Notice of Lodgment of petition of Appeal is complete, but no one has entered appearance on behalf of the sole respondent-State.

2. The facts of the case are similar to the facts in Arup Bhuyan vs. State of Assam1 Criminal Appeal No.889 of 2007, which we allowed on 3.2.2011.

3. As in the case of Arup Bhuyan (supra), the only evidence against the appellant in this case is his alleged confession made to a police officer, for which he was charged under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (in short ‘TADA’).

4. The facts of the case are that one Anil Kumar Das went missing from the evening of 6.11.1991, and his dead body was recovered after two months on 19.1.1992 from the river Dishang. Five persons including the appellant were charged for his death. The appellant was not named in the FIR. No prosecution witness has attributed any role to the appellant. The charge sheet in the case was filed after a gap of nine years from the date of the commission of the offence, and charges were framed more than four years after filing of the charge sheet. There is no evidence against the a