Retracted co-accused confession under Evidence Act can be considered if voluntary, true, and strongly corroborated.

A retracted confession of a co-accused in a joint trial may be taken into consideration under section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, but prudence requires strong corroboration before it can safely be acted upon. Retraction does not make the confession irrelevant. The text states that the confession was voluntary because the Magistrate took precautions to exclude police influence and the maker repeatedly affirmed free will, and it was truthful because surrounding circumstances and recoveries supported it. Material corroboration, including recovery of the deceased's ornaments at the appellant's instance and supporting witnesses, connected the appellant with the murder.

---

---

Issues: Whether the retracted confession of a co-accused could be taken into consideration against the appellant, and whether that confession was voluntary, true, and sufficiently corroborated in material particulars to sustain the conviction.

Analysis: A confession made by one accused in a joint trial may be taken into consideration against a co-accused under section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act. A retraction does not render such a confession irrelevant, though prudence requires strong corroboration before acting upon it. On the facts, the confession was found voluntary because the Magistrate took adequate precautions to ensure freedom from police influence and the maker repeatedly affirmed that the statement was given of his own free will. The confession was also held to be truthful because it was supported by surrounding circumstances, including the presence of the maker at the scene, the unusual locking of the house, the pajama and dagger, and the appellant's conduct after the . The recovery of the deceased's ornaments at the appellant's instance, coupled with supporting witnesses, furnished substantial corroboration connecting the appellant with the murder.

Conclusion: The retracted confession was admissible for consideration, was voluntary and true, and was amply corroborated in material particulars. The conviction of the appellant was therefore sustained.

---