NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has set aside the Meghalaya High Court’s order convicting a murder accused, holding that confessional statements, without corroboration, are insufficient to sustain a finding of guilt.
A Division Bench of the apex court, comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, allowed the criminal appeal filed by Bernard Lyngdoh Phawa and acquitted him, concurring with the trial court’s earlier order of acquittal.
“The confessional statements, without corroboration are insufficient to sustain a finding of guilt. There was not a single circumstance available” to incriminate the accused, the Bench observed.
Ajay Sabharwal, counsel for the appellant, argued that the alleged confessions attributed to the accused could not form the basis of a conviction in the absence of independent and reliable corroboration.
He further submitted that there was no valid evidence supporting the “last seen” theory, that the recoveries and seizures were not proved in accordance with law, and that the confessional statements were either exculpatory, inconsistent, retracted or otherwise unreliable.
Agreeing with these submissions, the Supreme Court held that the alleged confessions of the appellants could not form the basis of a conviction without independent and reliable corroboration.
It noted that there was no valid evidence to support the “last seen” theory, that the recoveries and seizures were not legally proved, and that the confessional statements lacked reliability.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s judgment, which had overturned the trial court’s acquittal and convicted the appellant for murder and destruction of evidence.
Following the High Court’s conviction order, Phawa had approached the apex court by way of a criminal appeal challenging the verdict.
The appellant was represented by Sabharwal, along with Advocate on Record Prabhas Bajaj.
The case dates back to 2006, when a college student in Meghalaya was reported missing and was later found buried in a graveyard.
The police arrested two of his friends, alleging that the victim was last seen in their company, that a rope was allegedly recovered and purportedly used to kill him, and that certain belongings of the victim were allegedly found in the possession of one of the accused.
The post mortem report opined that the cause of death was lack of air, while the examining doctors acknowledged that the possibility of death by suicide by hanging could not be ruled out.
The prosecution further alleged that ransom calls were purportedly made and relied on confessions allegedly attributed to the accused, one of whom was in custody at the time such calls were made.
The trial court found the prosecution case to be weak and incomplete and acquitted the accused. However, the High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted them.
Upon a comprehensive re examination of the matter, the Supreme Court held that the evidence relied upon was unreliable, the investigation was allegedly marred by serious gaps, and ultimately acquitted both accused, directing their release.