Retracted confession and weak circumstantial evidence were found unsafe to sustain a kidnapping and murder conviction.

Conviction for kidnapping and murder based on circumstantial evidence, a retracted Section 164 confession, and an alleged extra-judicial confession could not be sustained. The last-seen circumstance, recovery of the deceased's silver chain, alleged abscondence, and recovery of the body connected only the co-accused, not the appellant. The extra-judicial confession was rejected as unreliable because the witnesses did not clearly prove they heard any confession and no contemporaneous scene-recreation record was produced. The retracted confession required corroboration, but no independent circumstance supported it and it conflicted with medical evidence showing death by head injury, not strangulation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant's conviction for kidnapping and murder could be sustained on the basis of circumstantial evidence, a retracted confession under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the alleged extra-judicial confession.

Analysis: The circumstance of last seen together, the recovery of the deceased's silver chain, the alleged abscondence, and the recovery of the body were found to connect only the co-accused and not the appellant. The alleged extra-judicial confession was discarded as unreliable because the witnesses did not clearly and consistently prove that they actually heard any confession, and the prosecution failed to produce the contemporaneous record of the scene-recreation proceedings. The appellant's judicial confession, though recorded after compliance with the procedural safeguards under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was retracted and required assurance of truth through corroboration. No independent circumstance corroborated the appellant's role. The confession also conflicted with the medical evidence, which showed death by head injury and not strangulation, making the confession unsafe to rely upon.

Conclusion: The conviction of the appellant could not be sustained, and the finding was in favour of the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: A retracted confession can support conviction only when it is shown to be voluntary and true and receives at least broad corroboration from independent evidence; where such corroboration is absent and the confession is materially inconsistent with the medical evidence, it is unsafe to convict.

---