Confession Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction Without Corroboration: Supreme Court
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran on Tuesday (January 27) set aside the conviction of two accused in a murder case, holding that the finding of guilt could not rest on their confessional statements recorded by a magistrate when they were not represented by any counsel and when the statements lacked independent corroboration. The case arose from a missing-person complaint that later led to recovery of the victim’s body and allegations that the accused were involved in the victim’s death, along with claims of ransom calls and recoveries of articles. Allowing the appeals, the Court reversed the Meghalaya High Court’s decision that had overturned the Trial Court’s acquittal, restored the acquittal, and directed release of the accused if not required in any other case.
The first accused was arrested on 20.02.2006. The record states he led police to the second accused’s house for seizure of articles said to belong to the victim and to a graveyard at Mawroh, where the body was exhumed. The second accused was arrested on 23.02.2006, and a rope was stated to have been recovered thereafter. Medical evidence included post-mortem findings and examination of the doctor on cause and timing of death.
The case proceeded on charges including Sections 302 and 201 IPC; Section 364A was also discussed in the appellate record. Evidence referred to included “last seen together” testimony, alleged ransom calls, seizures and recoveries, forensic aspects, and discovery claims discussed with reference to Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC and the Magistrate’s deposition on the recording process were relied upon by the prosecution, while the accused questioned reliability of the circumstances, the call allegations, and the recoveries.
On the framework applied for circumstantial-evidence review, the Court recorded: “We would examine the evidence led, keeping in mind the principles regulating a case of circumstantial evidence stated in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda1 as harmonized with the principles regarding powers of the Appellate Court in dealing with an appeal from an acquittal as has been delineated in Chandrappa & Others v. State of Karnataka5.”
The Court recorded: “The learned counsel specifically referred to the decisions of this Court in Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab v. State of Maharashtra3 and Manoharan v. State by Inspector of Police, Variety Hall Police Station, Coimbatore4 to urge that a confessional statement voluntarily made, even if retracted, can still be reckoned to bring home a conviction…” It then stated on Kasab: “The reliance placed by the State on Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab3 to urge the acceptability of the confessions in this case may not be appropriate.”
On the confessions and the Magistrate’s evidence, the Court stated: “Examined, in the light of the above findings, we find the confessional statements as seen from the records, juxtaposed with the deposition of PW 32, the Magistrate who recorded the confession under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C, to be highly suspect.” It recorded: “There was no satisfactory answer to the question, regarding discrepancy of the accused having signed on 08.03.2006 but the Magistrate having signed the recorded confession on 09.03.2006.” and “This is contrary to the testimony of PW32 before Court and both the recorded statements are completely in English as seen from the records.”
On legal assistance, the Court recorded: “One other compelling circumstance is the fact that the accused, when produced before the Magistrate for the purpose of recording the confession, they were never asked as to whether they required the assistance of a lawyer.” It observed: “We… hold that it is the duty and obligation of the Magistrate… to make him fully aware that it is his right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner…” and “It needs to be clarified here that the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner is not to be construed as sanctioning or permitting the presence of a lawyer during police interrogation. It is thus to be seen that the right to access to a lawyer in this country is not based on the Miranda [(1966) 16 L Ed 2d 694: 384 US 436] principles…” and concluded: “We do not find PW32 having offered any such legal assistance to the accused at the time of production before her before recording the confession under Section 164.”
On the nature of the two statements, the Court recorded: “the confession of A1 is purely exculpatory and accuse A2…”, “The exculpatory statements made by A1… cannot at all be relied on against A2.”, and “Insofar as A2 is concerned… which is not a confession as such.” It added: “…can only be used for corroborating the circumstantial evidence otherwise established, which we find to be totally absent…”
On confession as evidence, citing Manoharan and Pyarelal Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1963 SC 1094), the Court stated: “…a confession can form a legal basis of a conviction if the Court is satisfied that it was true and was voluntarily made. However, it was also held that a Court shall not base a conviction on such a confession without corroboration.”
On what qualifies as a confession, citing Kanda Pandyachi @ Kandaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu (1971) 2 SCC 641, it recorded: “‘a confession has to be a direct acknowledgment of guilt…’”
Applying these, the Court held: “The confession allegedly made by the appellants is of no use in bringing home a conviction, especially when there was no corroboration available, of the statements made, from other valid evidence.”
The Court directed: “We find absolutely no reason to uphold the conviction of the accused as entered into by the High Court reversing the order of acquittal of the accused by the Trial Court. We reverse the order of the High Court and restore that of the Trial Court, which acquitted the accused. We have already granted bail to the accused on the conclusion of hearing. We direct that if the accused are still in jail, then they shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case and if they are already released on bail, the bail bonds will stand cancelled. The appeals stand allowed with the above directions.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For Appellant(s): Mr. Subhro Sanyal, AOR Ms. Deepmala, Adv. Mr. Anki Kashyap, Adv. Mr. Ajay Sabharwal, Adv. Mr. Prabhas Bajaj, AOR Mr. Harsh Chauhan, Adv.
For Respondent(s): Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, AOR Mr. T.K. Nayak, Adv.
Case Title: Bernard Lyngdoh Phawa Versus The State of Meghalaya
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 85
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No.3738 of 2023; Criminal Appeal No. of 2026 [@Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.1798 of 2025]
Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar; Justice K. Vinod Chandran
