Retracted confessional statements need strict scrutiny before penalty or confiscation can rest on them without corroboration.

A retracted confessional statement must be closely scrutinised before it can support penalty or confiscation. Where the statement was withdrawn the next day and the retraction was backed by allegations of coercion, detention and injuries, together with hospital records, and where the recording officer was not examined and no independent corroboration was produced, the statement could not safely be treated as voluntary or true. The fact that it contained details said to be within the appellant's special knowledge did not, by itself, make it reliable. On that basis, the penalty and confiscation orders could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty and confiscation could be sustained solely on the basis of a retracted confessional statement said to have been obtained voluntarily.

Analysis: The statement was retracted immediately the next day, and the retraction was supported by contemporaneous allegations of coercion, detention, and injuries, along with hospital records. The departmental response did not come from the recording officer, the officer was not examined, and no independent corroboration was brought on record. In such circumstances, a retracted statement required close scrutiny and could not safely be treated as voluntary or true merely because it contained details said to be within the appellant's special knowledge.

Conclusion: The retracted statement could not be treated as a reliable voluntary confession, and the orders of penalty and confiscation could not be sustained.

---