Unproved Last-Seen Theory and Retracted Confessions Cannot Sustain Murder Conviction: Supreme Court in Bernard Lyngdoh Phawa v. State of Meghalaya [2026 INSC 85]

In Bernard Lyngdoh Phawa v. The State of Meghalaya (2026 INSC 85), the Supreme Court held that the High Court wrongly reversed an acquittal in a 2006 murder case, since none of the circumstances relied on by the prosecution was established and the Section 164 CrPC confessions were suspect, recorded without informing the accused of their right to a lawyer, and uncorroborated (paras 13–30). A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran allowed both appeals, restored the Trial Court's acquittal and directed release of the accused (paras 32–33).

Status: High Court judgment convicting the appellants under Sections 302 and 201 IPC reversed; Trial Court's acquittal restored; accused to be released forthwith if not required in any other case, and bail bonds cancelled; appeals allowed (paras 32–33).

Headnote: Reversal of Acquittal on Circumstantial Evidence and Retracted Confessions

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302 and 201 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 164 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27 – Circumstantial evidence – Appeal against acquittal – Last seen together – Discovery of body – Recovery of weapon – Test Identification Parade – Retracted confession – Exculpatory confession – Right to legal aid before Magistrate.

Held: (i) The medical evidence was inconclusive as to homicide, since the doctor accepted in cross-examination that the findings could fit hanging; it had to be weighed with the other circumstances (paras 11–12).

(ii) The last-seen theory failed: there was no proof that the deceased was seen with the accused proximate to the death, the roommates were not examined, and the auto-rickshaw driver's dock identification was clouded by a first identification at the police station without a Test Identification Parade (paras 13–15).

(iii) The discovery of the body and the recovery of the rope could not be pinned on the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, as no disclosure statements were proved and the rope was found in the open at the exhumation site with no blood, skin or hair on forensic examination (paras 17–19).

(iv) The ransom calls remained unproved, and the seized articles and mobile phone were never shown to the father for identification; they formed no link in the chain (paras 16, 20–22).

(v) The Section 164 confessions were suspect due to discrepancies in dates and language, and the Magistrate did not inform the accused of their right to legal assistance as required by Kasab; A1's confession was exculpatory and could not be used against A2, and A2's statement did not admit the murder (paras 25–28).

(vi) A confession must be a plenary acknowledgment of guilt and requires corroboration before conviction; with no proven circumstance, the confessions were of no use and the acquittal had to be restored (paras 29–32).

(paras 11–32)

Case Details: Bernard Lyngdoh Phawa v. The State of Meghalaya (2026 INSC 85)

Final Outcome: Both criminal appeals allowed; conviction under Sections 302 and 201 IPC set aside; Trial Court's acquittal restored; accused to be released forthwith if in custody and not required in any other case, and bail bonds cancelled if on bail.

Case: Bernard Lyngdoh Phawa v. The State of Meghalaya, with a connected appeal

Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 85

Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 3738 of 2023, with Criminal Appeal No. ___ of 2026 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1798 of 2025)

Court: Supreme Court of India (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) – Reportable

Date of Decision: 27 January 2026

Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran (author)

Relevant Acts & Sections: Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302 and 201; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 161 and 164; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27; Constitution of India – Articles 21, 22(1) and 39A

Impugned Order: Judgment of the High Court allowing the State's appeal, reversing the Trial Court's acquittal and convicting the accused under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, while finding no kidnapping as charged (para 2)

Counsel: Sh. Subhro Sanyal, Advocate-on-Record, and Sh. Ajay Sabharwal, Advocate, for the two appellants; Sh. Avijit Mani Tripathi, Advocate-on-Record, for the State (para 3)

Source: Supreme Court of India

Key Holdings of the Supreme Court

• The last-seen theory was not proved, and the dock identification was doubtful because the witness first identified the accused at the police station without a Test Identification Parade (paras 13–15).
• Discovery of the body and recovery of the rope were not proved against the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act (paras 17–19).
• Seized belongings and the mobile phone were never identified by the father of the deceased and formed no link in the chain (paras 20–22).
• The Magistrate's failure to tell the accused of their right to legal assistance, along with discrepancies in the record, made the Section 164 confessions highly suspect (paras 25–27).
• An exculpatory confession of one accused cannot be used against the co-accused, and an uncorroborated confession falling short of an acknowledgment of guilt cannot found a conviction (paras 28–30).

Brief Facts of the Case

A college student went missing on the evening of 18.02.2006. His local guardian, a professor of his college, lodged the First Information Statement, stating that the deceased was reportedly last seen with the first accused (paras 7–8). The first accused was arrested on 20.02.2006, and on 21.02.2006 the body was exhumed from a graveyard, allegedly at his instance. The second accused was arrested later and allegedly led to recovery of a rope (paras 8–9, 18).

The post-mortem opined death by strangulation about 48 hours earlier. The prosecution relied on last-seen evidence, the discovery of the body, the recovery of the rope, seizures of the deceased's belongings, ransom calls to his father, and confessions of both accused under Section 164 CrPC (paras 6, 9, 16).

The Trial Court acquitted the accused. On the State's appeal, the High Court held that the chain of circumstances was complete and convicted them under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, though it found no kidnapping. The accused appealed (paras 2, 6).

Issues Before the Supreme Court

1. Whether the circumstances relied on by the prosecution were proved so as to form a complete chain pointing only to guilt (paras 6, 13–22).
2. Whether the retracted Section 164 confessions could found a conviction (paras 23–30).
3. Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal (paras 31–32).

Court's Findings and Reasoning

Approach (para 6): The Court examined the evidence with the Sharad Birdhichand Sarda principles on circumstantial evidence, harmonised with the Chandrappa principles on appeals against acquittal.

Medical evidence (paras 9–12): The doctor stated that the broken hyoid bone could result from hanging and that the intact larynx and absence of other signs were consistent with suicide by hanging. The medical evidence was not conclusive as to homicide, though the burial of the body raised strong suspicion.

Last seen together (paras 13–15): The friend of the deceased only said he had told her he would meet the first accused in the evening. The auto-rickshaw driver could not explain how he identified the first accused or the third passenger, and his first identification took place at the police station. The ownership of the auto was not proved, the seizure record showed an interpolation, and the vehicle was not produced.

Ransom calls (para 16): The calls to the father were not followed up, and the PCO owner said he would not recognise the persons; the calls remained an unsolved puzzle.

Discovery and recovery (paras 17–19): No disclosure statement of either accused was proved. Witnesses gave inconsistent dates for the exhumation and recovery, and the rope, found in the open at the exhumation site, showed only synthetic fibres on forensic analysis.

Seizures (paras 20–22): Items seized were not identified as the deceased's; the laptop came from the friend with whom it was left; the mobile phone and other articles were never shown to the father.

Confessions (paras 23–30): Distinguishing Kasab on voluntariness, the Court found discrepancies in dates and language in the Section 164 record. Applying Kasab's paras 474–475, it noted that the Magistrate did not offer legal assistance. A1's confession was exculpatory and A2's statement did not admit the murder. Relying on Manoharan, Pyarelal Bhargava and Kanda Pandyachi, the Court held that without corroboration and a direct acknowledgment of guilt, the confessions were of no use.

Final Outcome and Directions

• High Court's judgment reversed, and the Trial Court's acquittal of both accused restored (para 32).
• The accused, already granted bail on conclusion of hearing, to be released forthwith if still in jail and not required in any other case; bail bonds of those released stand cancelled (para 32).
• Appeals allowed; pending applications disposed of (paras 33–34).

Legal Principle Laid Down

In a case of circumstantial evidence, an appellate court reversing an acquittal must find each incriminating circumstance proved; last-seen evidence must be proximate to the death, and discoveries under Section 27 need proved disclosure statements. A retracted confession under Section 164 CrPC that is exculpatory, recorded without informing the accused of the right to legal assistance, or short of a plenary acknowledgment of guilt cannot, without corroboration, sustain a conviction (paras 13, 17–18, 26–30).

Precedents Relied Upon

• Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Applied – five golden principles of circumstantial evidence. Discussed at paras 2, 6.
• Chandrappa & Others v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 – Applied – powers of the appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Discussed at para 6.
• Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 9 SCC 1 – Distinguished on voluntariness; relied upon on right to legal aid – Magistrate's duty to inform the accused of the right to a lawyer. Discussed at paras 24, 26.
• Manoharan v. State by Inspector of Police, (2020) 5 SCC 782 – Referred to – confession must be true and voluntary to found a conviction. Discussed at para 29.
• Pyarelal Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1963 SC 1094 – Relied upon – no conviction on a retracted confession without corroboration. Discussed at para 29.
• Kanda Pandyachi v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1971) 2 SCC 641 – Relied upon – confession must be a direct acknowledgment of guilt. Discussed at para 29.

Important Paragraphs of the Judgment

Verbatim extracts from the judgment. For the full text, refer to the judgment PDF below.

Para 13: "On the theory projected of last seen together, we cannot but notice that there is no proof of the deceased having been seen together with the accused immediately before the death occurred."

Para 15: "The last seen together theory projected by the prosecution fails miserably in the above circumstances."

Para 18: "The rope is recovered from the open at the crime scene itself, from where the exhumation was carried out earlier, making it suspect and not worthy of reliance under Section 27 of the Evidence Act."

Para 27: "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."

Para 28: "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."

Para 30: "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."

Practical Impact of the Ruling

• For prosecutors: Disclosure statements must be recorded and proved to rely on Section 27 discoveries, and seized articles must be put to family members for identification (paras 17–18, 21–22).
• For Magistrates: Before recording a Section 164 confession, the accused must be made aware of the right to legal assistance; failure weighs heavily against the confession (paras 26–27).
• For investigators: Showing the accused to witnesses at the police station before dock identification undermines the identification (para 15).
• For appellate courts: An acquittal cannot be reversed on the "larger picture" when the individual circumstances are unproved and the confessions are unreliable (paras 31–32).

FAQs on Retracted Confessions and Circumstantial Evidence

1. What did the Supreme Court decide in Bernard Lyngdoh Phawa v. State of Meghalaya?

It set aside the High Court's conviction of the two accused for murder and causing disappearance of evidence, and restored their acquittal by the Trial Court (para 32).

2. Why did the last-seen theory fail?

There was no proof that the deceased was seen with the accused proximate to death, and the auto driver's identification was doubtful as it was first made at the police station (paras 13–15).

3. Can a retracted confession alone sustain a conviction?

Not without corroboration; a confession must also be a plenary acknowledgment of guilt (para 29).

4. Can one accused's exculpatory confession be used against the co-accused?

No. A1's statement absolving himself and blaming A2 could not be relied on against A2 (paras 23, 28).

5. Does failure to offer legal aid affect a Section 164 confession?

Yes. The Court relied on Kasab and noted that the Magistrate did not offer legal assistance, adding to its finding that the confessions were suspect (paras 26–27).

Keywords: 2026 INSC 85, Bernard Lyngdoh Phawa v. State of Meghalaya, reversal of acquittal, circumstantial evidence, last seen together, Section 302 IPC, Section 201 IPC, Section 164 CrPC confession, retracted confession, exculpatory confession, Section 27 Evidence Act, Test Identification Parade, right to legal aid, Kasab, Sharad Birdhichand Sarda, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Justice Sanjay Kumar, Supreme Court judgment

Related on LegalTaxGuru

• More Supreme Court Reportable judgments
• Civil/Criminal articles

Download Judgment PDF – Bernard Lyngdoh Phawa v. State of Meghalaya

Judgment PDF: 2026 INSC 85 – Bernard Lyngdoh Phawa v. The State of Meghalaya (Criminal Appeal No. 3738 of 2023) – Download Judgment PDF

Source: Supreme Court of India (official website).