Voluntary confession and corroboration principles applied; confession admitted, but co-accused acquittal upheld for lack of evidence.

A confession is admissible when the surrounding circumstances show it was made voluntarily; here, the Magistrate's warnings, supporting memorandum, and testimony satisfied that test, while allegations of threats, inducement, and police tutoring were rejected. The confession was also sufficiently corroborated by independent evidence, including eye-witness material and recoveries of clothes, weapons, ammunition, and related circumstances; corroboration was not confined to facts discovered only after the confession, and material already in police possession could be used if it supported the confession. A co-accused could not be convicted on the appellant's confession alone, and the remaining evidence was insufficient to disturb the acquittal, which was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the confession made by the appellant was voluntary and admissible in evidence. (ii) Whether the confession was sufficiently corroborated in material particulars, including by material already in the possession of the police before the confession was recorded. (iii) Whether there was sufficient evidence to interfere with the acquittal of the co-accused.

Issue (i): Whether the confession made by the appellant was voluntary and admissible in evidence.

Analysis: The record showed concurrent findings that the confession was made after the appellant had been in jail for two days, was recorded by a Magistrate after the usual warnings, and was supported by the Magistrate's testimony and memorandum. The allegations of threats, inducement, and police tutoring were found untrue, and the irregularity that the confession was recorded in jail did not affect its voluntariness. The principles governing admissibility of a confession require proof that it was free and voluntary, but those requirements were satisfied here.

Conclusion: The confession was held to be voluntary and admissible.

Issue (ii): Whether the confession was sufficiently corroborated in material particulars, including by material already in the possession of the police before the confession was recorded.

Analysis: The Court relied on independent corroboration from the eye-witness account, recoveries of clothes, arms, ammunition, and other articles, and circumstances consistent with the confession. It rejected the contention that only facts discovered after the confession could corroborate it. Materials already known to the police could also be used, and the confession was not merely a repetition of what the police already knew. The corroboration was found adequate in respect of the assailant's dress, weapons, ammunition, and related circumstances.

Conclusion: The confession was sufficiently corroborated in material particulars, and pre-existing police knowledge did not bar its use as corroborative evidence.

Issue (iii): Whether there was sufficient evidence to interfere with the acquittal of the co-accused.

Analysis: The confession of the appellant could not be treated as substantive evidence against the co-accused. The remaining evidence, including the key and other circumstances relied upon by the prosecution, was found insufficient to sustain conviction beyond reasonable doubt. In an appeal by special leave, there was no adequate basis to disturb the acquittal on the record before the Court.

Conclusion: The acquittal of the co-accused was upheld for want of sufficient evidence.

Final Conclusion: The Court upheld the conviction of the appellant and declined to interfere with the acquittal of the co-accused, with the result that both appeals failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A confession is admissible when the surrounding circumstances establish that it was voluntary, and it may be corroborated by independent evidence including material already in the possession of the investigating agency, while a co-accused cannot be convicted on a confession not admissible against him as substantive evidence.

---