Confession Under Section 164 CrPC Found Unreliable; Lack of Corroborative Evidence Leads to Acquittal
In a significant judgment, the Meghalaya High Court has overturned the conviction of Smti. Porthmi Bthuh, who was previously sentenced to life imprisonment for the alleged murder of her husband and grievous assault on her daughter. The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice W. Diengdoh delivered the verdict on 18th March 2026, acquitting the appellant due to procedural lapses and lack of corroborative evidence.
The case, which hinged primarily on circumstantial evidence and a confession recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, was scrutinized in light of several legal deficiencies. The confession, initially used to convict Bthuh, was found to suffer from substantial infirmities. The High Court noted that the confession was not corroborated by any other admissible evidence, leading to its unreliability. Furthermore, procedural lapses such as non-exhibition of the confession during trial, improper administration of oath, and blanks in crucial columns were highlighted as reasons for its inadmissibility.
The prosecution's reliance on circumstantial evidence without adequate corroboration was deemed insufficient by the court. Emphasizing the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in previous judgments, the court reiterated the necessity of establishing a complete chain of evidence that conclusively points to the guilt of the accused. The failure to do so, coupled with the prosecution's inability to prove its case on independent grounds, led to the acquittal of the appellant.
The judgment also addressed the application of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, clarifying that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish a complete chain of circumstances. The court observed that the prosecution cannot rely on the accused's failure to provide an explanation to compensate for its own deficiencies in proving the case.
This decision marks a significant moment in ensuring adherence to procedural fairness and the necessity of corroborative evidence in criminal convictions. The appellant, Smti. Porthmi Bthuh, is to be released immediately unless required in another case.
Bottom Line:
Conviction solely based on confession under Section 164 CrPC cannot be sustained if the confession suffers from several infirmities, including absence of legal corroboration, procedural lapses, and lack of admissible evidence supporting the prosecution's case.
Statutory provision(s): Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 302, 326; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Sections 164, 313; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Section 106
Smti. Porthmi Bthuh v. State of Meghalaya, (Meghalaya)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2868558
