The Supreme Court allowed the criminal appeals, setting aside the High Court's conviction and restoring the Trial Court's acquittal of the appellants for murder and causing disappearance of evidence -- The case involved the death of a college student, with prosecution relying on circumstantial evidence including last seen theory, recovery of the body and possessions, and confessional statements -- The Trial Court acquitted due to insufficient evidence, but the High Court reversed this, finding the chain of circumstances complete -- The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred by not considering whether the Trial Court's view was a possible one, and by overlooking lapses in investigation and inconsistencies in evidence -- The Court applied principles from Sharad Birdhichand Sarda and Chandrappa, holding that the circumstantial evidence did not exclude all hypotheses of innocence and that the acquittal should not have been disturbed
Criminal law-- Indian Penal Code, 1860-- Sections 302 and 34 --Code of criminal Procedure, 1973-- Sections 161, 164 and 378 -- Evidence Act, 1860-- Section 27 -- Missing of deceased-- Murder-- Case rest on circumstantial evidence-- Acquittal by trial court-- High was pleased to reverse the acquittal of accused and convicted appellants-- Aggrieved-- Challenged-- Principles regarding circumstantial evidence - Case of Sharad Birdichand Sarda (Supra) referred-- Scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal - Case of Chandrappa and ors (Supra) referred-- Recording of confessional statements u/s 164 of CRPC by appellants/accused-- No proof of the deceased having been seen together with the accused immediately before the death occurred-- Discovery of the body was not supported by any statement recorded from A-1-- Discovery of rope not as per section 27 of Evidence Act-- No legal assistance offered to the appellants before recording the confession u/s 164 of CRPC-- Case of Manoharan (Supra) referred-- Confession can form a legal basis of a conviction if the court is satisfied that it was true and was voluntarily made-- No conviction can be recorded on such a confession without corroboration-- No single circumstance available incriminating the accused in the death of their friend-- Conviction set aside-- Acquittal restored-- Appeals allowed
Para-- 6, 13, 17, 18, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's conviction, and restored the Trial Court's acquittal of the appellants
Citation: 2026 LawText (SC) (01) 78
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 3738 of 2023 WITH Criminal Appeal No. of 2026 [@Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.1798 of 2025]
Date of Decision: 2026-01-27
Case Title: The Issue of whether the High Court erred in reversing the Trial Court's acquittal based on circumstantial evidence, considering lapses in investigation and insufficient proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt
Before Judge: SANJAY KUMAR J. , K. VINOD CHANDRAN J.
Equivalent Citations: 2026 INSC 85
Advocate(s): Sh. Subhro Sanyal, Sh. Ajay Sabharwal, Sh. Avijit Mani Tripathi
Appellant: Bernard Lyngdoh Phawa
Respondent: The State of Meghalaya
Nature of Litigation: Criminal appeal against conviction by High Court for murder and causing disappearance of evidence
Remedy Sought: Appellants sought acquittal by challenging High Court's reversal of Trial Court acquittal
Filing Reason: Divergence of opinion between Trial Court and High Court on sufficiency of circumstantial evidence
Previous Decisions: Trial Court acquitted accused due to insufficient evidence -- High Court reversed acquittal and convicted under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC
Issues: Whether the High Court erred in reversing the Trial Court's acquittal without applying proper principles for appeals against acquittal Whether the circumstantial evidence, including last seen theory and confessional statements, was sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt
Submissions/Arguments: Appellants argued that High Court reversed acquittal without compelling reasons, failed to consider if Trial Court's view was possible, and overlooked inconsistencies in evidence -- State argued that last seen theory, recovery of evidence, and confessional statements corroborated prosecution story and justified conviction
Ratio Decidendi: An acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence and should not be lightly displaced -- In appeals against acquittal, the appellate court must consider if the Trial Court's view is a possible one -- For circumstantial evidence, the chain must be complete and exclude all hypotheses of innocence as per Sharad Birdhichand Sarda -- Lapses in investigation and inconsistencies in evidence can vitiate a conviction based on circumstantial evidence
Judgment Excerpts: The High Court reversed the judgment of the Trial Court but found no kidnapping as charged, all the same finding the accused guilty of murder (Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860) and causing disappearance of evidence (Section 201 of the IPC) The trite principle that an acquittal by one Court reinforces the presumption of innocence available to the accused, not liable to be displaced lightly, was thrown to the winds We would examine the evidence led, keeping in mind the principles regulating a case of circumstantial evidence stated in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda as harmonized with the principles regarding powers of the Appellate Court in dealing with an appeal from an acquittal as has been delineated in Chandrappa & Others v. State of Karnataka
Procedural History: Enquiry commenced with missing person complaint -- Appellants arrested, body exhumed, evidence recovered -- Trial Court acquitted due to insufficient evidence -- High Court reversed acquittal and convicted under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC -- Supreme Court heard appeals and restored Trial Court acquittal
