Voluntariness of confession depends on inducement, threat or promise, and corroborated retracted confessions can sustain conviction.

Mere surveillance or partial restraint does not by itself make a confession involuntary under the Evidence Act; improper influence must be shown from the surrounding circumstances. The delay in producing the accused before a Magistrate was not unreasonable because formal arrest followed the investigating officer's recorded belief and production occurred within the permissible time. The retracted extra-judicial confessions were held reliable because no intrinsic or extrinsic material discredited them, and they were independently corroborated by surrounding circumstances, including the accuseds' conduct, recovery of gold from the car, and contemporaneous admissions at the spot.

---

---

Issues: Whether the confessions recorded from the accused were involuntary or otherwise inadmissible because of alleged illegal custody and delay in producing them before a Magistrate, and whether the retracted extra-judicial confessions were sufficiently corroborated to sustain the convictions.

Analysis: The delay in producing the accused before a Magistrate was held not to be unreasonable, because they were formally arrested only after the investigating officer had recorded statements and formed the requisite belief, and they were thereafter produced within the permissible time. The surrounding circumstances showed supervision and restriction on movement, but not such complete custody as by itself to establish inducement, threat or promise within the meaning of the Evidence Act. A confession is not rendered involuntary merely because the maker was under some restraint or surveillance; there must be evidence from which it appears that the confession was caused by improper influence. On the facts, no such basis was shown. The Court also found no intrinsic or extrinsic material discrediting the truth of the confessions. The absence of the driver as a witness did not compel an adverse inference, and the confessions were supported by the surrounding circumstances, including the accused persons' conduct, the discovery of gold in the car, and the contemporaneous admissions at the spot.

Conclusion: The confessions were admissible and voluntary, the retracted extra-judicial confessions were sufficiently corroborated, and the convictions were rightly sustained.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the convictions and sentences were affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere surveillance or partial restraint does not make a confession involuntary under Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 unless the surrounding evidence shows inducement, threat or promise, and a retracted confession may be relied upon when independently corroborated by circumstances pointing to guilt.

---