Retracted confession and co-accused evidence: conviction upheld for one accused, but set aside for lack of independent proof

A retracted confession may sustain conviction if it is voluntary and true; applying that principle, Mahabir's confession was accepted because it was corroborated by medical and inquest evidence and by recovery of the victim's wristwatch, so his conviction was maintained. A co-accused confession cannot by itself found guilt and can only lend assurance to independent evidence; as the ring recovery against Shiba merely showed concealment and there was no substantive evidence of participation, his conviction was set aside and he was given the benefit of doubt.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the conviction of Mahabir could be sustained on the basis of his retracted confession, supported by corroborative circumstances and recoveries; (ii) Whether the conviction of Shiba could be sustained on the basis of co-accused confessions and the recovery of a ring.

Issue (i): Whether the conviction of Mahabir could be sustained on the basis of his retracted confession, supported by corroborative circumstances and recoveries.

Analysis: A retracted confession can be relied upon if it is found to be voluntary and true. The confessions of the maker may themselves sustain conviction, though corroboration is ordinarily sought. Here, the confession of Mahabir was found voluntary after proper scrutiny of the circumstances of recording. Its contents were consistent with the medical evidence, the inquest evidence, and the recovery of the victim's wristwatch pursuant to his statement. The later retraction was found to be baseless.

Conclusion: The conviction of Mahabir was sustained and the appeal was dismissed as to him.

Issue (ii): Whether the conviction of Shiba could be sustained on the basis of co-accused confessions and the recovery of a ring.

Analysis: A confession of a co-accused can only lend assurance to other substantive evidence and cannot by itself form the foundation of conviction. The recovery of the ring from an ash dump, on the available admissible material, only showed knowledge of concealment and did not establish participation in the murder or theft. In the absence of independent substantive evidence, the co-accused confessions could not be used to sustain guilt.

Conclusion: The conviction of Shiba was not sustainable and the appeal was allowed as to him.

Final Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were maintained against one appellant, while the other appellant was given the benefit of doubt and ordered to be released forthwith, resulting in a partial allowance of the appeal.

---