Co-accused confession needs independent corroboration before conviction; acquittal upheld where no linking evidence existed.

A conviction cannot rest solely on the confession of a co-accused, even if the statement is voluntary; independent evidence must first establish guilt, and the co-accused confession can only provide corroborative assurance. The only material against accused Nos. 4 and 5 was the confessional statements of accused Nos. 1 to 3 before customs officers, which were insufficient by themselves. The additional reliance on similarity between the silver seized from the van and the silver found at accused No. 4's factory also failed because no distinguishing marks linked the two lots. The acquittal of accused Nos. 4 and 5 was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal of accused Nos. 4 and 5 was liable to be reversed on the basis of the confessional statements of accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and the surrounding circumstances.

Analysis: The only direct material against accused Nos. 4 and 5 consisted of the confessional statements made by the co-accused before the customs officers. Those statements were found voluntary, but a confession of a co-accused occupies a lower evidentiary footing than accomplice evidence and cannot by itself sustain a conviction. Such statements can only lend assurance where there is independent evidence already establishing guilt. The additional circumstance relied upon, namely similarity between the silver seized from the van and silver found at the factory of accused No. 4, was held insufficient because there were no distinguishing marks connecting the two lots of silver.

Conclusion: The prosecution failed to prove the charge against accused Nos. 4 and 5, and the acquittal was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A conviction cannot be founded solely on the confession of a co-accused; independent evidence is required, and such confession can operate only as corroborative assurance.

---