The Supreme Court has ruled that a Magistrate is under a constitutional obligation to inform an accused person of their right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner before recording a confession under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). Citing the precedent set in Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab v. State of Maharashtra, the Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran set aside a murder conviction handed down by the Meghalaya High Court, restoring the Trial Court’s acquittal. The Court held that the failure to provide legal assistance, combined with a lack of corroborating evidence, rendered the confessions unreliable.
Background of the Case
The appeals arose from a judgment of the Meghalaya High Court, which had reversed the acquittal granted by the Trial Court. The case began with a missing person complaint regarding a student who failed to return to his room on February 18, 2006. The investigation led to the arrest of the appellants, Bernard Lyngdoh Phawa and another. The prosecution relied on the discovery of the victim’s body exhumed from a graveyard, the recovery of a rope, alleged ransom calls, and the recovery of the victim’s personal belongings.
While the Trial Court found the evidence insufficient to prove guilt, the High Court, on appeal, convicted the accused under Section 302 (murder) and Section 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) of the IPC. The High Court had reasoned that the “five golden principles” of circumstantial evidence were satisfied and that the chain of circumstances was complete.
Arguments of the Parties
The appellants argued that the High Court erred in reversing a well-reasoned acquittal without finding that the Trial Court’s view was impossible. They contended that the confessional statements were “full of inconsistencies, not made voluntarily,” and that the recovery of the alleged murder weapon (rope) was not connected to the crime as forensic analysis found no traces of the victim. They also argued that the “last seen theory” was not validly established.
The State vehemently defended the conviction, relying on the confessional statements and recoveries. The Counsel for the State cited Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab v. State of Maharashtra and Manoharan v. State, arguing that a voluntary confessional statement, even if retracted, can form the basis of a conviction.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Magistrate’s Duty to Inform About Legal Aid: The Supreme Court placed significant emphasis on the procedural lapses during the recording of confessions. The Bench observed that when the accused were produced before the Magistrate (PW32) for recording confessions under Section 164 Cr.P.C., “they were never asked as to whether they required the assistance of a lawyer.”
Referring to the decision in Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab v. State of Maharashtra, the Court reiterated the principle that the right to access legal aid arises when a person is first produced before a Magistrate. The Court quoted the relevant paragraph from Kasab:
“We, accordingly, hold that it is the duty and obligation of the Magistrate before whom a person accused of committing a cognizable offence is first produced to make him fully aware that it is his right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner… Any failure to fully discharge the duty would amount to dereliction in duty and would make the Magistrate concerned liable to departmental proceedings.”
The Court found that PW32 failed to offer such legal assistance, making the process highly suspect.
Discrepancies in Confessional Statements: The Court further noted glaring inconsistencies in the recorded statements. While the accused signed the statement on March 8, 2006, the Magistrate signed it on March 9, 2006. The Magistrate could not provide a satisfactory explanation for this discrepancy during cross-examination. Additionally, the printed form stated the confession was in Khasi, but the records showed it was in English.
Exculpatory Nature of Confessions: On the merits of the confessions, the Court observed that the statement of the first accused (A1) was “exculpatory in nature and clearly incriminates the co-accused,” while the second accused (A2) merely admitted the deceased died in his lap. Citing Kanda Pandyachi @ Kandaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, the Court held that a statement falling short of a “plenary acknowledgment of guilt” is not a confession.
Inconclusive Medical and Circumstantial Evidence: Beyond the confessions, the Court found the circumstantial evidence weak:
- Medical Evidence: The doctor admitted the death could be a suicide by hanging, noting the larynx was intact and common symptoms of strangulation were absent. Thus, “medical evidence is not conclusive as to a homicide.”
- Last Seen Theory: The Court held the theory “fails miserably” as no witness saw the deceased with the accused immediately before death.
- Recoveries: The recovery of the rope was from an open area at the crime scene, and forensic analysis showed “no human skin or hair.”
Decision
The Supreme Court concluded that the confessions were of no use in bringing home a conviction, especially given the lack of corroboration. The Bench held that the High Court erred in reversing the acquittal based on such evidence.
The Court ordered: “We reverse the order of the High Court and restore that of the Trial Court, which acquitted the accused.” The appellants were directed to be released forthwith.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Bernard Lyngdoh Phawa v. The State of Meghalaya
- Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 3738 of 2023
- Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
