Retracted confession requires independent corroboration before appellate interference with acquittal can be justified.

A retracted confessional statement, when challenged at the earliest opportunity and accompanied by allegations of coercion, cannot support interference with an acquittal unless its voluntariness is established and it is corroborated by reliable independent evidence. The prosecution's case failed because the alleged supporting witnesses were not produced for cross-examination and the remaining material did not provide trustworthy corroboration. On those principles, the HC declined leave to appeal and left the acquittal undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether leave to appeal against acquittal was warranted where the prosecution relied on a retracted confessional statement without independent corroboration.

Analysis: The confessional statement attributed to the respondent had been retracted at the earliest opportunity and the record reflected allegations of coercion and third-degree methods. In such circumstances, the Court treated the retraction as valid and examined whether there was independent corroboration to support the prosecution case. The witnesses said to have implicated the respondent were not produced for cross-examination, and the remaining material did not supply the necessary independent support. On the principles governing retracted confessions, a conviction or interference with acquittal cannot rest on the confession alone unless its voluntariness is established and it is corroborated by reliable independent evidence.

Conclusion: Leave to appeal was declined and the acquittal was left undisturbed.

Final Conclusion: The prosecution failed to make out a case for appellate interference because the retracted confession was uncorroborated by trustworthy independent evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: A retracted confessional statement, without independent corroboration and proof of voluntariness, cannot by itself justify interference with an acquittal.

---