JUDGMENT D.N. Roy, J. - This is an appeal by Jaikaran, Sahdeo, Chandar and Bhagirathi who have been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Basti under Sections 201 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 of the Code. Under the former count each has been sentenced to four years' rigorous imprisonment and also to a fine of Rs. 500/- , and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment of one year ; and under the latter count each has been sentenced to death. They have appealed against their conviction and sentence. There is also the usual reference by the learned Sessions Judge for the confirmation of the sentence of death. 2. The charge against the Appellants was that on or about the night between the 23rd and 24th of August, 1953, in village Mahli they in furtherance of the common intention of all of them did commit the murder of one Smt. Malahia and they caused the evidence of the said offence to disappear by burying the dead body in the river bed of Mahsai Nadi with the intention of screening themselves from legal punishment. Malahia was aged between sixteen and twenty years. She was the daughter of Jaikaran Appellant, by caste Barai, and was the own sister of Sahdeo Appellant. The other two Appellants belong to the same family as Sahdeo. She was married to a person of her own caste. It was alleged that she went astray and was abducted by one Kumare Chamar. A panchayat was held and Malahia was restored to her father who made her go to her husband's place. She again went back to Kumare Chamar and she was again taken back and was married to one Ram Harak Barai. She did not give up her way ward course of conduct and ultimately she went away to one Rahman, a resident of village Saharia. It is contended that Jaikaran Appellant, the father, and Sahdeo the brother, as also Chandar and Bagirathi Appellants in sheer disgust put her to death and buried her dead body in the bed of the river with a view to conceal their crime. The Appellants denied their guilt and their complicity in the matter and they contended that they had been falsely roped in. The Appellants denied their guilt and their complicity in the matter and they contended that they had been falsely roped in. There was some evidence on the record to show that Smt. Malahia was a woman of loose character and she had been going away from place to place. The father and the brother might under such circumstances have felt that she was bringing disgrace to the family; but that feeling might as well have been entertained by the members of the family of her husband. There is no direct evidence to the effect that the Appellants did commit the murder of Malahia. Nor was there any direct evidence to show that they had buried the bead body in the bed of the river. 3. It appears that on the 3rd of September, 1953, Dhonde Pasi P.W. 6, who is the Chowkidar of village Piprahawa, had gone to the river side to scrape grass at about 2 gharis before sunset. He noticed that in the bed of the river the bone of a dead body was visible coming out of the water. He suspected that there might have been some foul play. Accordingly he went to the police station and on the same day at 6-45 p.m. he lodged a report at the Thana stating that it was not known whose dead body was there, and stating further that an investigation into the matter may be conducted. The Sub-Inspector proceeded to the scene of occurrence. The dead body was taken out on the 4th of September, 1953, with the help of Sahdeo Appellant and another. An inquest was made over the dead body. The inquest report shows that it was Sahdeo Appellant who had identified the body to be that of his sister. 4. The dead body was sent for postmortem examination. The post-mortem examination was conducted on the 5th of September 1953. The body was found in an advanced state of decomposition and various parts of the body had been found missing. The skin was peeled off. There was no hair on the head. The surface of the body was white and light yellowish in colour. The right eye was found open and protruding and dried up. The left orbit was found missing. On the left side the lower six ribs were found broken at the mid-clavicular line. The skin was peeled off. There was no hair on the head. The surface of the body was white and light yellowish in colour. The right eye was found open and protruding and dried up. The left orbit was found missing. On the left side the lower six ribs were found broken at the mid-clavicular line. The entire left arm and fore-arm were missing up to the shoulder, and soft parts of the right hand were missing up to the wrist. The lower half of the thorax and the soft parts were also missing. The month was found open and the tongue protruding. In the opinion of the Civil Surgeon, who had conducted the post-mortem examination, the cause of death could not be ascertained due to the absence of parts of the body and advanced stage of decomposition. 5. No clue seems to have been obtained by the police in between the 4th of September, 1953, and the 7th of September, 1953. It was alleged on behalf of the prosecution that on the 7th of September, 1953, one Sheo Balak, who was produced as a witness on behalf of the prosecution, contacted Sub-Inspector Surat Pratab Singh who investigated the case and told him that Sahdeo and Bhagirathi Appellants were prepared to make a confession. Sub-Inspector Surat Pratab Singh accordingly went to the village and he sent for Hasibullah, the Sarpanch, and Surat Narain, the Upsabhapati, and he commissioned them to contact Sahdeo and Bhagirathi who were alleged to have been sitting in a grove at a distance of about one furlong from the house of Sarabjit where the Sub-Inspector had stayed. And it was further alleged that these two persons accompanied by Sheo Balak went to the grove and after about an hour-and-a-half they returned and told the Sub-Inspector that Sahdeo and Bhagirathi were making a confession. The Sub-Inspector thereupon interrogated Sahdeo and Bhagirathi and arrested them. These two persons were brought to Basti on the 9th of September, 1953, and produced before Sri Ghayasuddin, a Magistrate of the First Class, for the recording of their confession. Sri Ghayasuddin did not record their confessions on that date and he sent them to jail custody from where they were again brought to his court on 10th September, 1953, on which date two confessional statements were recorded by him. Sri Ghayasuddin did not record their confessions on that date and he sent them to jail custody from where they were again brought to his court on 10th September, 1953, on which date two confessional statements were recorded by him. The conviction of the four Appellants is based entirely upon those two confessional statements. No significance can be attached to the recovery mud from the place where the body is said to have been buried and also from the recovery of certain broken pieces of bangles found near the spot, which answered to the description of the bangle that was found on the person of the deceased. 6. The confessional statement of Bhagirathi is Ex. P-11/A on the record, and the confessional statement of Sahdeo in Ex. P-12/A. The record of the confession shows that before the statements had been made by them the Magistrate had put to them the questions as to whether they were making the statements of their own free will without any pressure or inducement having been brought to bear upon them. And the answer by both these persons was that they were making the confession voluntarily and without force or pressure having been brought upon them. Sahdeo was asked as to why he was making a statement, and he replied that he could not give any reason. Bhagirathi, on the other hand, said in answer to the question as to why he was making a statement, that he wanted to state what he had done. Bhagirathi and Sahdeo both contended that Smt. Malahia was a girl of loose character and on account of her conduct they got disgusted with her and on that account they killed her. Bhagirathi said that they took away Smt. Malahia and when they reached near the place of occurrence Chandar gave her a lathi blow and she fell down; that Bhagirathi caught hold of the throat of Malahia and pressed it; that thereafter Chandar and Jaikaran put a lathi on her neck and pressed it; and Bhagirathi caught hold of a hand and leg of the deceased, while Sahdeo caught hold of the other hand and leg pressed her down and they thereby put her to death. He further stated that after committing the murder they carried the dead body to the bank of the river where Sahdeo and Bhagirathi dug the ground and all the four Appellants buried the dead body, whereafter all the four returned to their house. This statement of the occurrence runs counter to the statement, on material particulars, as given by Sahdeo. 7. Sahdeo stated that when the girl was taken to the place of occurrence, Chandar gave her a lathi blow and felled her down; that Bhagirathi caught hold of her throat and Jaikaran caught hold of her right leg and Sahdeo caught hold of the left leg; that thereafter Chandar and Bhagirathi put a danda on her throat, pressed it and killed her. And* after that Bhagirathi and Chandar picked up the dead body. Bhagirathi tied her hands with her sari and pulled the dead body and the body was taken the bank of the river where Bhagirathi and Sahdeo dug the ground and buried it underneath. Sahdeo further stated that from there his father Jaikaran Swam across the river and went away to village Sisai, and the other three returned home. The statement of the occurrence as given by Sahdeo was, therefore, materially different from the statement as given by Bhagirathi. Sahdeo further stated that when they recured home his grandmother inquired of him as to where was Malahia and Chandar informed her that she had been killed. 8. Sheo Balak P.W. 4, Surat Narain P.W. 5 and Hasibullah P.W. 17 to whom the extra-judicial confession was alleged to have been made by Bhagirathi and Sahdeo on the 7th of September, 1953, were produced on behalf of the prosecution. We have gone through their statements and we have grave doubts as to whether any extra-judicial confession had really been made to them. A confession before it can be acted upon and can be made the basis of a conviction, must be proved to have been voluntarily made and true. In the present case if we look into the statement of Sub-Inspector Surat Pratab Singh, we would find that it took these witnesses, Sheo Balak, Hasibullah and Surat Narain about an hour-and-a-half when they were sent into the grove to contact the two confessing accused and when they returned to the Sub-Inspector with the message that they were really making a confession. This inordinate length of time to cover a distance of about one furlong and to bring the message that the two accused were really making a confession, goes to show that the confession was not really voluntary and that extraneous influences were being brought to bear upon these two persons in order to make a confession. It may be stated here with advantage that Sahdeo Appellant was present when the dead body was recovered from the bed of the river on the 4th of September, 1953, and it was he who had identified the dead body as that of his sister. If Sahdeo had really put the girl to death, and if he was instrumental in concealing the dead body with a view to do away with the evidence of the crime, it would not be reasonable to think that he would be present at the spot just at the time when the dead body was detected there. Sahdeo and Bhagirathi retracted their confession, both before the Committing Magistrate and in the Court of Sessions. We have already said that if the two confessions are placed side by side, we would find that they differ in material particulars. There was no other evidence produced on behalf of the prosecution to show that any corroboration had been obtained from any other independent evidence in regard to the alleged confessions. When the only evidence against the accused is his own confessional statement which was retracted before the Committing Magistrate as well as before the Sessions Court, the court has to be fully satisfied that it is a true and really voluntary and reliable statement before admitted it against him. There is of course nothing to prevent a confession, although retracted from being given effect to as against the maker. But when the confession has been retracted, the general rule is that independent corroboration of the confession should be required. A confession implicating a co-accused requires corroboration if the co-accused is to be convicted on it. In the present case we have reason to think that the two confessions attributed to Sahdeo and Bhagirathi were not voluntary, nor were they true. And since there was no independent corroboration, the confessions could not be made the basis of the conviction of Sahdeo and Bhagirathi, much less could they be made the basis of conviction of Jaikaran and Chandar. And since there was no independent corroboration, the confessions could not be made the basis of the conviction of Sahdeo and Bhagirathi, much less could they be made the basis of conviction of Jaikaran and Chandar. If, as in the present case, against the Appellants the case entirely rests on the confession made by two of the accused and there is a conflict between the two statements as to the manner in which the crime is said to have been committed, it would at once raise grave and reasonable doubts about the complicity of the accused persons in the crime, and the benefit of that doubt should at any rate be extended to the Appellants. 9. Upon a careful consideration of the evidence that was produced in the case we are of opinion that the evidence fell far short of proving that the girl had been put to death by these four Appellants or that her dead body had been buried by them with a view to remove the evidence of their crime. Accordingly we have come to the conclusion that the conviction and the sentence of the Appellants cannot be sustained. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of the Appellants and direct that they be set at liberty at once unless wanted in any other matter. The reference is rejected.