In a landmark ruling that reinforces the constitutional rights of an accused, the Supreme Court of India has held that a conviction cannot be based solely on an uncorroborated confessional statement. The Court emphasized that while a voluntary and truthful confession can be a legal basis for conviction, it must be supported by independent evidence, especially when the confession is retracted and recorded without the presence of legal aid.

A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran set aside the judgment of the Meghalaya High Court, which had reversed a Trial Court's acquittal. The Apex Court restored the acquittal of the accused, highlighting that procedural safeguards under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the constitutional right to legal representation are non-negotiable.

The case dates back to 2006, originating from the alleged murder of a young man in Meghalaya. The prosecution's case was built on a series of circumstances: a missing person complaint, the exhumation of a body from a graveyard, the recovery of a rope (allegedly the murder weapon), and the "last seen together" theory.

While the Trial Court had originally acquitted the appellants, finding the chain of circumstantial evidence incomplete, the Meghalaya High Court took a different view. The High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted the accused, placing heavy reliance on their confessional statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC—statements that the accused later retracted during the trial.

One of the most significant observations made by the Supreme Court concerned the absence of legal representation during the recording of the confessions. The Court noted that when the accused were produced before the Magistrate to record their statements, they were never asked if they required the assistance of a lawyer.

Justice K. Vinod Chandran, authoring the judgment, wrote:

“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.”

The Court reiterated that the duty of a Magistrate to inform an accused of their right to legal aid flows directly from Articles 21 (Right to Life) and 22(1) (Right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner) of the Constitution. The Bench referenced the famous case of Mohammed Ajmal Kasab v. State of Maharashtra (2012), which established that the right to legal aid exists even at the stage of recording a confession.

The Bench also delved into the nature of the statements made. Under the law, a confession must be an admission of guilt (inculpatory). In this case, the Court found that the statement made by the first accused (A1) was largely "exculpatory"—meaning it was aimed at shifting the blame onto the second accused (A2) to save himself.

The Court observed that A1 claimed A2 had committed the murder. The Court clarified that such a statement cannot be used to establish the guilt of the co-accused (A2). On the other hand, A2’s statement did not admit to the murder at all, only stating that the deceased took his last breath in his lap. The Court held that this did not qualify as a "plenary acknowledgment of guilt."

The core of the judgment rested on the principle that confessions, particularly retracted ones, are "weak" evidence. Citing the case of Kanda Pandyachi @ Kandaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu (1971), the Bench explained that for a confession to be the basis of a conviction, it must be a direct acknowledgment of the crime.

If there is no "corroboration"—that is, other evidence like witness testimony or forensic links that support the story told in the confession—the court should not convict. In this case, the Court found that the "last seen" theory was not proved, the medical evidence was inconclusive (not ruling out suicide), and the forensic reports did not link the recovered rope to the crime.

The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for substituting its own views for the "plausible" view taken by the Trial Court. It is a settled principle in Indian law that if a Trial Court’s view for acquittal is reasonable, the High Court should not interfere just because another view is possible.

The Court concluded:

“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.”

Finding that the prosecution had failed to establish an "unbroken chain of circumstances," the Supreme Court allowed the appeal. The conviction was set aside, and the Court directed the immediate release of the accused.

This judgment serves as a stern reminder to the judiciary and law enforcement that procedural shortcuts, especially regarding the right to legal aid, can invalidate even the most high-profile prosecutions.

Case Title: Bernard Lyngdoh Phawa Versus The State of Meghalaya Citation: 2026 INSC 85 Coram: Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran