Retracted confession and co-accused statement need independent corroboration before conviction can be sustained.

A conviction based only on a retracted confession and a retracted co-accused statement cannot stand without independent corroboration in material particulars. Such evidence is not inadmissible, but it is inherently suspect and must be closely scrutinised; a retracted confession may support conviction only if the court is satisfied that it is true and voluntary. On the facts, the material was unsafe to rely on because the prosecution had no independent support and the appellant was not shown to be in possession of narcotics. The conviction was held unsustainable and the appellant received the benefit of reasonable doubt.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant's conviction could be sustained on the basis of a retracted confession and the retracted statement of a co-accused, in the absence of independent corroboration.

Analysis: The only material against the appellant was the co-accused's retracted statement and the appellant's own retracted confession. Such evidence is not legally inadmissible, but accomplice-like evidence carries inherent taint and ordinarily requires corroboration in material particulars. A retracted confession may form the basis of conviction only if the court is satisfied that it is true and voluntary, and even then it calls for close scrutiny. In the facts of the case, the alleged confession was not considered safe to act upon without independent support, particularly where the appellant was not shown to be in possession of narcotics and the prosecution case rested entirely on suspect statements.

Conclusion: The conviction was not sustainable and the appellant was entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt.

---