Retracted judicial confession can sustain conviction when voluntary, truthful, and supported by surrounding incriminating circumstances.

A retracted judicial confession can still support conviction if it is found voluntary and true. The confession here was recorded by a magistrate after precautionary questioning, with no material showing police pressure or coercion, and surrounding circumstances provided assurance of its reliability. Those circumstances included the accused's employment in the house, his unexplained disappearance after the , recovery of articles at his instance, and his fingerprint on the kitchen door. Earlier recovery of some articles did not discredit the confession, and the extra-judicial confession as well as the co-accused's confession were not relied on for corroboration.

---

---

Issues: Whether the accused's judicial confession, though retracted, could be relied upon for conviction when supported by surrounding incriminating circumstances.

Analysis: A retraction of a judicial confession does not by itself render the confession unusable. The decisive tests are whether the confession was voluntary and true. The confession was recorded by a magistrate after precautionary questioning, and there was no material to show police pressure or coercion. The fact that some recovered articles preceded the confession did not undermine it. Independent circumstances, including the accused's employment in the house, unexplained disappearance after the occurrence, recovery of articles at his instance, and his fingerprint on the kitchen door, furnished assurance to the truth of the confession. The extra-judicial confession and the co-accused's confession were not relied upon for corroboration.

Conclusion: The judicial confession was rightly acted upon, the acquittal was unsustainable, and the conviction for murder with common intention was restored with sentence of imprisonment for life.

---