Confession Without Corroboration Cannot Be Basis For Conviction : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (January 27) set aside the conviction in a murder case, upon finding that the conviction was based on the uncorroborated confessional statements made by the accused, in absence of a legal aid, before the magistrate.

“…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.”, observed a bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K Vinod Chandran, while setting aside the Meghalaya High Court's judgment that reversed the Trial Court's acquittal, despite the fact that the accused were not represented by any counsel when their confessional statements were recorded.

The case arose from the alleged murder of a man in Meghalaya, in which the Appellants were charged under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC. While the Trial Court had acquitted them, the High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted the accused, placing considerable reliance on their retracted confessional statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.

Disagreeing with the High Court's reasoning, the judgment authored by Justice Chandran found that the retracted confessions could not be legally relied upon. He added that before recording a confession, it is the mandatory duty of the Magistrate to inform the accused of their right to legal representation and, if they are unable to engage a lawyer, to ensure that legal aid is provided. This safeguard, the Court said, flows from Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution and has been authoritatively recognized in Mohammed Ajmal Kasab v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 9 SCC 1.

“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 said, stressing that his omission struck at the very root of the voluntariness and legality of the confessions.

On another count, the Court held that the High Court had erred in placing reliance on the uncorroborated confessional statement of the accused, observing that even if A1 had stated that the offence was committed by A2, such a statement would be exculpatory in nature so far as A1 was concerned and could not, by itself, establish the guilt of A2.

“the confession of A1 is purely exculpatory and accuse A2 of having strangulated his friend, leading to his death. The exculpatory statements made by A1 to absolve himself from the liability and accuse A2 of having caused the death, cannot at all be relied on against A2. Insofar as A2 is concerned, he does not speak of the murder having been committed and merely admits that the deceased took his last breath in A2's lap, which is not a confession as such. True, if the incidence of death as spoken in both confessions is eschewed and the other aspects of the three having been together on the crucial evening, even if accepted, can only be used for corroborating the circumstantial evidence otherwise established, which we find to be totally absent in the above case.”, the court observed.

“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 held, referencing Kanda Pandyachi @ Kandaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1971) 2 SCC 641 where it was held that “a confession has to be a direct acknowledgment of guilt of the offence in question and such as would be sufficient by itself for conviction. If it falls short of such a plenary acknowledgment of guilt it would not be a confession even though the same is of some incriminating fact which taken with other evidence tends to prove his guilt.”

Accordingly, the Court set aside the High Court's conviction, restored the acquittal, and directed the release of the accused if not required in any other case. The appeal was allowed.

Cause Title: Bernard Lyngdoh Phawa Versus The State of Meghalaya

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 84

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

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.