Judgment Subba Rao, J.-The accused was convicted under section 302, Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to transportation for life. The accused and P.W.7 are husband and wife, P.W. 7 being his third wife. The husband and wife lived together happily and had a number of children. One Narayanamurthi (the deceased) was a neighbour of the accused, and it is in evidence that he led a way-ward life. Somehow he was able to seduce P.W. 7 and there is evidence that there was illicit intimacy between P.W. 7 and the deceased Narayanamurthi. The husband discovered her in a compromising position twice, and on the second occasion as the accused threatened to put an end to their lives the wife left the husband for her parent’s house. On the morning of the 30th March, 1948, Narayanamurthi was found dead in his house, and the prosecution case is that he was murdered by the accused. That there was sufficient motive for the accused to commit the murder admits of no doubt. P.W.7, Seethamma, the wife of the accused, admits in her evidence that she had illicit intimacy with Narayanamurthi and that she was discovered twice in a compromising position. There is. also other evidence to that effect. The more difficult question is whether the accused was the person who stabbed Narayanamurthi. There is no direct evidence in the case. The only important document on which the lower Court convicted the accused is the confession made by him before the Magistrate, Ex.P-16 in the case. In this the accused gave in a detailed manner the reason for the crime and the circumstances under which and the manner in which the offence was committed. Before the Sessions Court, when the Sessions Judge put him a direct question with reference to the confession made by him, he only stated “I know nothing. I cannot see after sunset. I sleep in the field.” It will therefore be seen that the accused did not give any reason why he made a confession before the Magistrate. The learned counsel appearing for him contended that the confession was not voluntary and therefore should not be relied upon. He argued that the fact that the confessions contained so many details and so many facts corroborating the evidence in the case indicated that it could not have been a voluntary one. The learned counsel appearing for him contended that the confession was not voluntary and therefore should not be relied upon. He argued that the fact that the confessions contained so many details and so many facts corroborating the evidence in the case indicated that it could not have been a voluntary one. The elaborate manner in which the confession was made may well have been due to the fact that the accused, in a penitent mood, intended to make a clean breast of all the facts known to him. The fact that a confession is more elaborate than necessary or that it contains more particulars than are required at the particular stage does not necessarily show that the confession was not voluntary. It was next contended that we should not act upon a retracted confession without corroboration on material particulars. As a question of law this argument is not sound, at least so far as our High Court is concerned. It has been held in a number of cases, the latest being Rajagopal, In re1, that a conviction can be based on a retracted confession without corroboration if the reasons given by the accused for withdrawing the confession are palpably false. Ordinarily we should expect corroborative evidence of a retracted confession. Though it is not a rule of law as a rule of prudence it is generally unsafe to convict a person on a retracted confession alone. This statement of law is concisely and accurately stated in Sukar Dusadh v. Emperor2, “As far back as in Queen v. Jhurree3, it was held that a voluntary and genuine confession is legal and sufficient proof of guilt and this decision has never been overruled though it has sometimes been said that the rule of prudence is in favour of seeking corroboration of a confession which has been retracted.” But in this case we are satisfied that the confession was voluntary and represented the true state of facts. Indeed the accused did not even give any reasons why he made the confession which he later on retracted. He did not give, for the obvious reason that the confession was voluntary. We, therefore, accept the confession made by the accused in the lower Court and hold that the learned Sessions Judge had rightly convicted him. The appeal is dismissed. V.P.S. ----- Appeal dismissed.