JUDGMENT : Misra, J. - Appellants have been convicted u/s 302/34, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life. They were also convicted u/s 201, Indian Penal Code, but no separate sentence has been passed. Accused Sanu and Sukru Kisan (p.w.3) are brothers. Deceased Bakuli was their father's sister's son. They were co-villagers. The deceased left the village and went out in search of labour. He had entrusted a piece of his land to Sanu for cultivation on bhag. The deceased got information from p.w.3 that Sanu got the land, kept in his charge, measured by an Amin with the object of getting it recorded in his name during the settlement operations. On getting this information, Bakuli came to the village. He did not put-up with Sanu but stayed in the house of p.w.3. He told Sanu not to cultivate the land far that year. Sanu had a talk with Bideshi (the other-accused) as to how the deceased wanted him not to cultivate his land. Prosecution case is that Bideshi suggested to Sanu that if he would give him half the share in the land, he would see that Bakuli was killed. In pursuance of the conspiracy, in the night of 7-5-1964 both the accused went out with the deceased who never returned back. Next day the dead body of the deceased was recovered from inside an accumulated water a little away from a liquor shop. The defence is one of complete denial. 2. The learned Sessions Judge held that death was homicidal. The doctor (p.w.11), who held the postmortem examination, was of opinion that death was due to suffocation as a result of compression of the cheat. He positively ruled out death being caused by drowning though the dead body was found inside the water. The solitary external injury on the body was a lacerated wound of 31/2" x 11/2" x 1" over the right side of the upper chest one inch away from the right auxillary fold directing downwards and forwards. On examination of the doctor's evidence we are satisfied that death was homicidal and due to compression of the chest and not as a result of drowning. Nothing substantial was placed before us in criticism of the doctor's opinion. 3. The question for consideration, however, is whether the two Appellants were responsible for the death of the deceased. There are no eye-witnesses. Nothing substantial was placed before us in criticism of the doctor's opinion. 3. The question for consideration, however, is whether the two Appellants were responsible for the death of the deceased. There are no eye-witnesses. The conviction of the appeal is based on their retracted confessions. In what circumstances conviction can be based on retracted confessions has been fully discussed by a. Bench of this Court in Sk. Abdul Hanan and Ors. v. State of Orissa ILR 1962 Cutt. 516, where in all the relevant Supreme Court decisions have been examined. There, the law was laid down as follows: This confession had now been retracted. In other words, when the accused person does not admit that he is guilty, the confession in law must be taken to have been retracted, though the making of the confession itself is admitted in his statement u/s 342, Criminal Procedure Code. As to the value of the retracted confession as against the confessing accused the position of law is well settled. There is no absolute rule that a retracted confession cannot be acted upon unless the same is corroborated. But as a matter of prudence and caution it has now been crystalised into a rule of law that a retracted confession cannot be made solely the basis of a conviction unless the same IS corroborated. It does not, however, necessarily mean that each and every circumstance mentioned in the confession regarding the complicity of the accused must be separately and independently corroborated. Nor is it essential that corroboration must come from facts and circumstances discovered after the confession was made. It is sufficient that the general trend of the confession is substantiated by some evidence which would tally with what is contained in the confession. The corroboration in the case of an accomplice or approved must be in material particulars. But in the case of retracted confession of an accused it is only necessary to find out whether the retraction of the earlier statement, which was the result of remorse, repentance and contrition, was voluntary and true and it is with that object alone that corroboration was sought for. The standards of corroboration in "the two are quite different. In the case of the person confessing who has resiled from his state, general corroboration is sufficient while an accomplice's evidence should be corroborated in material particulars. The standards of corroboration in "the two are quite different. In the case of the person confessing who has resiled from his state, general corroboration is sufficient while an accomplice's evidence should be corroborated in material particulars. In addition the Court must feel that the reasons given for the retraction in the case of a confession are untrue 1 Subramania Goundan v. State of Madra A.I.R.. 1957 S.C. 216. The rule does not require that each and every circumstance must be separately and independently corroborated. The rule will be meaningless inasmuch as the evidence itself would afford sufficient basis for conviction and it would be unnecessary to call the confession in aid. In the light of the aforesaid principles the evidence in this cases is to be examined. 4. Before doing so it is necessary to separately state the exact nature of confessions of Bideshi and Sanu. Bideshi's confession is as follows: Bakuli had same land. He had given the land to Sanu on bhag. This year during settlement operations Sanu got the land measured and tried to get it recorded in his name. Sanu's elder brother sent information to Bakuli. On enquiry from Amin Bakuli cam to know that only there was measurement but there was no record in the name of Sanu Bakuli asked Sanu not to cultivate his land. While passing on the way, I heard the conversation. On inquiry Sanu narrated the substance of the conversation. Sanu asked for my help and suggested that we would get Bakuli drunk and throw him into water. When I got terrified, Sanu gave me courage and promised to give me a goat. Both of us took Bakuli with us, got him drunk with liquor. We took him near a place where water had accumulated. I suggested to Sanu to let free Bakuli. Sanu, however, threw Bakuli on the ground. The deceased struggled. After he was killed, both of us carried him and threw him into water. Sanu's confession is more detailed but is substantially the same. The only difference between the two confessions is that each tried to throw the blame on the other, though both admitted that they had jointly killed the deceased and threw the dead body into water together. After he was killed, both of us carried him and threw him into water. Sanu's confession is more detailed but is substantially the same. The only difference between the two confessions is that each tried to throw the blame on the other, though both admitted that they had jointly killed the deceased and threw the dead body into water together. In Sanu's confession, the further detail, which occurred, is that Bakuli was thrown in to the ground by Bideshi and he trampled over his chest while Sanu caught hold of his legs. 5. It has been contended that the confessions are not voluntary. The learned Sessions Judge held that though there were some materials to indicate that the I.O. tried to manipulate the documents to advance the time of arrest, the confessions were voluntary as there was no suggestion of any assault or inducement to extort confession and as the accused were given sufficient time for full reflection. The accused were produced before the Magistrate (p.w.13) before whom the confessions were made on 14-5-1964. The Magistrate gave them caution and remanded them to jail custody for full reflection. They were produced before the Magistrate on the 16th when he gave them further two hours' time for reflection. He has all relevant questions necessary to ascertain whether the confession was being voluntarily made. We agree with the Learned Sessions Judge that the confessions were voluntary. 6. Whether the confessions are true or not, the confession of Sanu may be taken up first. In the confessional statement be stated that he was a bhag tenant under the deceased who was living in some other village and the former got the land measured by an Amin. This part of the confessional statement is corroborated by the evidence of p. ws. 3, 4 and 8. His confessional statement that the deceased come to the village and asked him not to cultivate his land any further is corroborated by the evidence of p. ws. 3 and 4. His statement that accused Bideshi came to call the deceased and called him also and all the three of them went together is supported by the evidence of p.w.3. His statement that they together went to the liquor shop and took liquor there is supported by the evidence of the Chowkidar (p.w.1-), the salesman in the liquor shop (p.w.2) and the liquor vendor (p.w.7). His statement that they together went to the liquor shop and took liquor there is supported by the evidence of the Chowkidar (p.w.1-), the salesman in the liquor shop (p.w.2) and the liquor vendor (p.w.7). His statement that therefrom .they went towards the jungle where the deceased was thrown to the ground, trampled upon and thereafter thrown to the water is corroborated by the medical evidence and the recovery of the dead body from the water. The evidence of the doctor (p.w.11) is that the deceased died as a result of suffocation due to pressure on the chest. The external injury on the chest was a lacerated wound directed downwards and forwards. Such an injury could be caused by trampling on the chest. P. ws. 1, 3, and 5 spoke to the recovery of the dead body from a ditch in which water had accumulated. We have carefully examined the evidence of p. ws. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8, and are satisfied that they are witnesses of truth. Nothing substantial has been urged why their evidence should not be accepted. A Banion was seized from Sanu which contained human blood on serological test in his answer u/s 342. Criminal Procedure Code. he explained that he had lifted the dead body on more than one occasion and blood might have stuck to it. The explanation does not appear to be satisfactory as the dead body had been thrown to the water and it was recovered more than 12 hours after when the blood would have clotted and no further blood come out from it. It is to be noted that the water hole, where the body had been cast was at a distance of about 100 yards from the liquor shop. From the aforesaid analysis it is clear that the retracted confession of Sanu has been corroborated in material particulars though a general corroboration could have been sufficient. There had been also ample corroboration implicating Sanu in the factum of murder. Thus his confession is true. 7. It is unnecessary to repeat the materials common to both corroborating the confessional statement of Bideshi which have been fully discussed in the case of Sanu. There had been also ample corroboration implicating Sanu in the factum of murder. Thus his confession is true. 7. It is unnecessary to repeat the materials common to both corroborating the confessional statement of Bideshi which have been fully discussed in the case of Sanu. The strongest circumstance against both the accused is that they with the deceased were found last together in the fateful night whereafter the deceased did not come back home and his d body was recovered next morning. Thus there is general corroboration of the confessional statement. His failure to explain the whereabouts of the deceased connects him with the factum of order. His confession is true. Both of them can be convicted on their respective retracted confessions which have been found to be voluntary and true. 8. The confessional statement of each of the accused not only implicates himself but implicates the other also. u/s 30. evidence Act where more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, and a confession made by one of such persons affecting himself and some other of such persons is proved the Court may take into consideration such confession as against Such other persons as well as against the person who makes such confession. Though the confession of the co-accused may be regarded as evidence in a general way because of Section 30 of the Evidence Act, it is not evidence as defined by section:3 of the evidence Act. In dealing with the case against an accused person, the Court cannot start with the confession of a co-accused person. It must begin with other evidence adduced by the prosecution, and after it had formed its opinion with regard to the quality and effect of the said evidence, it is permissible to turn to the confession in order to receive assurance to the conclusion of the guilt which the judicial mind is about to reach on the said other evidence - Subramania Goundan Vs. The State of Madras, . The difficulty may sometimes, arise where the confessional statements of the different accused persons are contradictory in material particulars, or while the confession implicates other accused persons, it attempts to put the blame more on the other accused. The State of Madras, . The difficulty may sometimes, arise where the confessional statements of the different accused persons are contradictory in material particulars, or while the confession implicates other accused persons, it attempts to put the blame more on the other accused. In such a case whether the confessional statement of one accused would be at all taken into consideration against the other would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab their Hari Charan Kurmi and Jogia Hajam Vs. State of Bihar, .Lordships held that one of the conditions in Section o of the Evidence Act is that the confession must implicate the maker substantially to the same extent as the other accused against whom it is sought to be taken into consideration. Where on reading the confession, as a whole, it appears that he was really trying to throw the main blame on the other accused and make out that he was an unwilling spectator to the crime committed by the other accused, the utmost that can be stated is that the confession cannot be used at all against the other accused. But because there were differences between his confession and the confessional statement of the other accused, the confessional statements cannot be condemned in limine as untrue where some of the differences are immaterial, some others are due to the desire of the accused to throw the blame on the other and the rest stand clearly resolved by other evidence in the case. Applying the aforesaid tests to this case, the confessional statement of each of the accused can be taken into consideration against the other. There is no substantial difference in their confessional statements excepting that one tried to throw more blame on the other. But each of them has implicated both of them as jointly responsible for the murder. This is a case where some of the differences are immaterial and some others are due to the desire of one accused to throw more blame on the other and the rest stand clearly resolved by other evidence in the case the confessional statement of each of the accused can be taken into consideration against the other. The retracted confession of each of the accused establishes by itself beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused. The retracted confession of each of the accused establishes by itself beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused. The confessional statement of the other accused can be taken into consideration in this case to lend assurance to the conclusion reached by the Court. 9. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. Barman, A.C.J. - I agree. Final Result : Dismissed