https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279760 A retracted confession recorded in jail without proper inquiry into voluntariness, and unsupported by direct or circumstantial evidence of murder, was held unsafe to sustain convictions for murder and causing disappearance of evidence, so those charges failed on benefit of doubt. By contrast, the appellants' authorship of ransom letters, recovery of ransom money from both, and coordinated conduct provided strong circumstantial proof of kidnapping and extortion, and independently supported findings of criminal conspiracy and common intention. The remaining convictions and sentences were therefore maintained. en-us Mon, 26 Nov 1956 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 04 Apr 2019 14:06:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279760 A retracted confession recorded in jail without proper inquiry into voluntariness, and unsupported by direct or circumstantial evidence of murder, was held unsafe to sustain convictions for murder and causing disappearance of evidence, so those charges failed on benefit of doubt. By contrast, the appellants' authorship of ransom letters, recovery of ransom money from both, and coordinated conduct provided strong circumstantial proof of kidnapping and extortion, and independently supported findings of criminal conspiracy and common intention. The remaining convictions and sentences were therefore maintained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 26 Nov 1956 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279760