The Supreme Court on Tuesday (27 January 2026) set aside the conviction of two men accused in a 2006 murder case from Meghalaya, holding that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The top court restored the trial court’s acquittal, sharply criticising the High Court for reversing the verdict without strong legal basis.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a missing person complaint filed in February 2006. The victim, a college student, was reported missing by his friends and guardian. Days later, his body was exhumed from a graveyard in Shillong.
Read also:- Supreme Court Restores Rail Project Land Compensation, Sets Aside High Court’s Blanket Cancellation
The police arrested Bernard Lyngdoh Phawa and another accused, alleging that the victim had been murdered and buried after being strangled. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence such as:
- Alleged “last seen together” theory
- Recovery of a rope said to be the murder weapon
- Recovery of personal belongings
- Confessional statements of the accused
The trial court, however, found the evidence insufficient and acquitted both accused. The Meghalaya High Court later reversed the acquittal and convicted them under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC.
Key Issues Before the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court examined whether:
- The chain of circumstantial evidence was complete
- The “last seen” theory was proved
- The confessional statements were reliable
- The recovery of evidence was legally valid
- The High Court was justified in overturning acquittal
Court’s Observations
The bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran found serious gaps in the prosecution case.
On the alleged last-seen theory, the Court noted:
“There is no proof of the deceased having been seen with the accused immediately before death.”
The Court observed that witnesses could not firmly establish the victim’s presence with the accused on the crucial day. Even the auto-rickshaw driver’s identification was found unreliable, as no proper test identification parade was conducted.
Medical Evidence Raised Doubts
The post-mortem report did not conclusively establish homicide. Doctors admitted that the injuries could also be consistent with hanging, not strangulation.
The Court noted:
“Medical evidence does not conclusively establish homicidal death.”
This seriously weakened the prosecution’s theory of murder.
Read also:- Customary Law Can’t Bar Widow’s Property Rights, Says Punjab & Haryana High Court
Recovery of Body and Rope Found Unreliable
The prosecution claimed the accused led police to the burial site and the rope used for strangulation. However, the Court found:
- No credible witness confirmed the accused led police
- No valid disclosure statement was proved
- The rope showed no blood or forensic link to the crime
- Recovery was made from an open place, not from concealment
The Court held these recoveries unreliable under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
Confession Not Trustworthy
The Supreme Court expressed strong doubts about the confessional statements:
- Dates on confession documents did not match
- Accused were not informed of their right to legal counsel
- Statements were inconsistent and partly exculpatory
- No independent corroboration existed
The bench observed:
“A confession cannot be the sole basis of conviction unless it inspires full confidence and is corroborated.”
The Court also noted that the confession of one accused blamed the other, which could not legally be used as proof.
High Court’s Error
The Supreme Court found that the High Court wrongly reversed the acquittal without addressing serious flaws in evidence.
It reiterated that:
- Acquittal strengthens presumption of innocence
- Appellate courts must show strong reasons to overturn acquittal
- Suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof
Read also:- Supreme Court Refuses to Halt Labour Case, Clears Conciliation Without Demand Notice
Final Decision
Allowing the appeals, the Supreme Court ruled:
“We find absolutely no reason to uphold the conviction… The prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances.”
The Court restored the trial court’s acquittal and ordered the immediate release of the accused if not required in any other case.
Case Title: Bernard Lyngdoh Phawa v. State of Meghalaya
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 3738 of 2023
Decision Date: 27 January 2026
