Retacted co-accused statements need independent corroboration before penalties can be sustained.

Penalties could not be sustained where the only incriminating material was a co-accused's statement linking the appellant to the gold, because that statement was retracted and remained uncorroborated by independent evidence. The co-accused gave inconsistent versions, and the appellant denied the allegation. In the absence of reliable corroboration, the statement alone was held insufficient to establish the appellant's involvement or support liability, so the evidentiary basis for both penalties failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalties could be sustained solely on the basis of the uncorroborated statement of a co-accused, particularly after retraction of that statement.

Analysis: The only material against the appellant was the statement of the co-accused linking him to the gold. That statement was later retracted and the co-accused gave different versions at different times. The appellant denied the allegation, and no independent evidence was produced to corroborate the co-accused's version. In the absence of corroboration, a co-accused's statement by itself was treated as insufficient to establish the appellant's involvement.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the appellant. The penalties could not be sustained on the basis of the uncorroborated and retracted statement alone.

Final Conclusion: The common finding was that the evidentiary foundation was inadequate to uphold either penalty, and both appeals succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: A retracted statement of a co-accused cannot, by itself, form the sole basis for liability unless it is corroborated by independent evidence.

---