JUDGMENT : Patra, J. - 8 persons were put on trial, the first seven on charges u/s 457/395, Indian Penal Code for having committed lurking house trespass and dacoity on the night of 17th March, 1964 in the house of P.Ws. 1 and 2 in village Sagadi, P.S. Kessennagar and accused No. 8 on a charge u/s 412 Indian Penal Code for having dishonestly received some of the stolen properties. The learned Additional Sessions Judge. Cuttack who tried the accused, convicted the accused No. 1 Kuna Kandi and accused No. 5 Golak Mundi u/s 395, Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to R.I. for three years and farther sentenced accused No. 5 to pay a fine of Rs. 500 and in default to undergo R.I. for six months more. He acquitted the other six accused persons. Accused No. 1 has preferred Cr. A. No. 72 of 1966 and accused No. 5 has preferred Cr. A. No. 163 of 1966 and both have been heard together. 2. According to the prosecution a dacoity was committed at midnight on 17-3-1961: in the house of P.W. 1, Prafulla Kumar Jena. She and her sister-in-law, Saraswati Jena (P.W. 2) with their minor children P.W. 3, Nagendra Kumar Jena and P.W. 4, Gagan Kumar Jena and another boy resided in that house but in separate rooms adjoining one another. The husbands of P.Ws. 1 and 2 work at Calcutta. An old lady Hiramani Bewa, a neighbour was sleeping in the room of P.W. 1 to keep her company. At about midnight the ladies got up to answer call of nature and went to the front courtyard and came back. Suddenly four persons entered into the house by scaling over the wan and entered into the room of P.W. 1. They were focussing torch lights and were armed with tentas. On seeing them P.W. 1 raised an alarm and one of the miscreants pierced a tenta into her left eye brow causing bleeding injury and threatened her with assault if she made any further noise. The old lady was also silenced. Two of the, miscreants kept guard over them and the other two began removing the articles. Gold and silver ornaments kept in wooden boxes and in the Sindhuk were removed by breaking open the boxes. Cash of Rs. 600 was stolen. The old lady was also silenced. Two of the, miscreants kept guard over them and the other two began removing the articles. Gold and silver ornaments kept in wooden boxes and in the Sindhuk were removed by breaking open the boxes. Cash of Rs. 600 was stolen. P.W. 1 was then taken to the other room where Saraswati (P.W. 2) was sleeping. The members of the family were kept under confinement by force, and the dacoits broke open Saraswati's boxes and removed several articles there from. On their demand the two ladies removed their earrings and handed them over to the culprits. In the course of this dacoity, P.W. 3 was also injured. Besides the four culprits who were inside the house, some others were standing outside the house. After removing the articles, they chained the door of Saraswati's room from outside, and escaped with the booty. After the culprits left, P.W. 4 removed the chain by inserting his hand through a gap in the door way and all the inmates came out, and shouted calling for help. Some of the neigh hours came to the spot, but by then the dacoits had escaped. P.W. 1 to 4 left for Kessen nagar P.S. where F.I.R. was lodged at 7 A.M. the next morning. The A.S.I. (P.W. 7) who was then in charge of the Thana, recorded the F.I.R. on the statement made by P.W. 1 The list of properties appended to the F.I.R. at pages 3 and 4 thereof was not written at the Thana, but afterwards the A.S.I. came to the house of P.W. 1 and the list was prepared after due verification of the properties that were stolen from the room of P.W. 1. This was done at about 10 A. M. on 18-3-1964. A supplementary list (J x. 2) of the articles stolen from the room of P.W. 2 Saraswati was prepared by the A.S.I. on the following day, that is, 18.3.1964. Investigation proceeded and in the course of investigation certain properties alleged to have been stolen from the rooms of P.Ws. 1 and 2 were recovered from the house of Golak Mundi (Accused No 5) who is Appellant in Cr.A. No. 163 of 1966. On 18.5.1964 Accused No. 1 Kuna Kandi (Appellant in Cr. A. No. 72 of 1966) was produced before Shri B.N. Jena, a First Class. 1 and 2 were recovered from the house of Golak Mundi (Accused No 5) who is Appellant in Cr.A. No. 163 of 1966. On 18.5.1964 Accused No. 1 Kuna Kandi (Appellant in Cr. A. No. 72 of 1966) was produced before Shri B.N. Jena, a First Class. Magistrate, who recorded his confession, in the course of which he stated to have taken part in the dacoity in the house of P.Ws. 1 and 2 along with his associates including Golak Mundi (Accused No. 5). The confession, so far as is relevant to this case, is to the following effect: In the month of Magh in village Sagadi in Kissan nagar P.S. they Gani Kandi, Babaji Nath, Bidya of village Goudgop, Golak Mundi (A. 5), Dhruba Samal, Chakradhar Kandi and himself (Kuna Kandi) committed theft of the following articles, namely, (1) One gold necklace, (2) One pair of silver Dhala, (3) One pair of Bala and Batphala, (4) Two pieces of Taga, (5) One piece of Taita, (6) One pair of Paunji, (7) Two gold rings, (8) One pair of Kanaphula. Three persons were entrusted with the selling of the stolen articles from whose houses the articles were recovered subsequently. It may be stated here that the recovery of articles from the house of Golak Mundi (A. 5) was on 13-5.1964 under the seizure list Ex. II whereas the confessional statement of Accused No. 1 Kuna Kandi was recorded on 18.5.1964. 3. The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against them. Accused No. 1 admitted having made the confession before the magistrate Shri Jena and pleaded that he did not do so out of his own free will, and that the police had assaulted him severely to make the confession promising at the same time to make him an approver and set him free. He admit (sic) that at the time of making the confession before the magistrate be did not complain to him that the police had assaulted him and induced him to make the confession because the police had asked him not to disclose that before the magistrate. Accused DO. 5 Golak Mundi, while denying having committed the offence, admitted that certain articles were recovered from his house by the police, but excepting one article (M.O. VII) he claimed the rest as belonging to his wife and mother. Accused DO. 5 Golak Mundi, while denying having committed the offence, admitted that certain articles were recovered from his house by the police, but excepting one article (M.O. VII) he claimed the rest as belonging to his wife and mother. When questioned about the confession made by Kuna Kandi implicating him in the commission of dacoity, he stated that due to enmity between him and Kuna Kandi the latter had falsely implicated him. 4. That a dacoity was committed in the house of P.Ws. 1 and 2 on the night of 17-3-64 has been very satisfactorily proved in this case and the correctness of this finding has also not been challenged before me. As already stated, out of the 8 accused persons put on trial, all except Accused Nos. 1 and 5 had been acquitted in the trial Court. The conviction of Accused No. 1 Kuna Kandi is based on his retracted confession coupled with the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 who have identified him as one of the culprits the conviction of Accused No. 5 is based on the retracted confession of his co-accused Kuna Kandi and the recovery of some stolen articles from his house. The articles recovered from the home of Accused No. 5 are M.Os. VI, VII, VIII, XII and XIII of these M.Os. VI, VII and XIII are included in the list of properties mentioned in the F.I.R. and the other two articles, namely, M.Os. VIII and XI form part of the supplementary list Ext. 2. It is urged by the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants that the list of properties appended to the F.I.R. and the supplementary list Ext. 2 are not admissible in evidence, because these lists were prepared by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation and as such hit by Section 162, Code of Criminal Procedure. The A.S.I. (P.W. 7) who recorded the F.I.R. deposed that he recorded the F.I.R. (Ext. 1) at, 7 A.M. on 18-3-164 on the statement made by P.W. 1 Prafulla Kumari Jena. As she could not give a full list of the stolen articles only some of the items were noted in the F.I.R. in the second page thereof. The A.S.I. (P.W. 7) who recorded the F.I.R. deposed that he recorded the F.I.R. (Ext. 1) at, 7 A.M. on 18-3-164 on the statement made by P.W. 1 Prafulla Kumari Jena. As she could not give a full list of the stolen articles only some of the items were noted in the F.I.R. in the second page thereof. But the list mentioned in the 3rd and 4th pages containing the list of other stolen articles was recorded on the information given by Prafulla Kumari Jena at her house at 10 A.M. that very day. It was elicited from him in cross-examination that immediately after he recorded the F.I.R. at the Police Station he started examining witnesses in the course of investigation of the case. The question therefore for consideration is whether the list of articles appended to the F.L.R. (Ext. 1) and the list (Ext. 2) are hit by Section 162, Code of Criminal Procedure. In support of contention that these lists are not admissible in evidence, reliance is placed on behalf of the Appellants on a decision of the Lahore High Court reported in AIR 1932 488 (Lahore) ., where the learned Judge says that a list of stolen properties which is made and handed over to the police in the course of investigation cannot be admitted in evidence. The report does not disclose the exact point of time when that list was handed over to the police and whether by that time any progress, if at all, was made in the investigation of the case. A. Division Bench of Oudh Chief Court in a case reported in Emperor v. Narain 32 Cri.L.J. 630 were of the view that a list of stolen property prepared in the presence of a Police Officer before the actual commencement of the investigation by the Police cannot be excluded from evidence as being statement made to a Police Officer during investigation. What happened in that case was the dacoity took place on the night of 2nd/3rd January 1930 and it was reported at the Police Station at 5 A.M. on 3rd January. A Police Officer at once went to the village and in his presence the lists of stolen properties were prepared. What happened in that case was the dacoity took place on the night of 2nd/3rd January 1930 and it was reported at the Police Station at 5 A.M. on 3rd January. A Police Officer at once went to the village and in his presence the lists of stolen properties were prepared. The learned Judges held that by the time the lists were prepared the investigation was merely in the preliminary stage and that these two lists were additions to the first report which were necessary for the proper presentation of the case by the complainant to enable the police to make a full investigation. In the circumstances they held that the lists were prepared before the investigation actually began and as such cannot be excluded from evidence as being statements made to a Police Officer during the course of investigation. A similar view was taken by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court in the case reported in Brij Lal v. Emperor 207 IC 15. His Lordship went to the length of stating that Section 162, Code of Criminal Procedure has no reference at an to a list of stolen property and that it is not even necessary for the complainant to state in the F.I.R. that a list is being prepared and will be supplied to the Police, and that when such a list is given to the Investigating Officer within a few hours, or within a day or two if the dacoity is a serious one, it would be ridiculous to say that the list cannot become a part of the record, because the investigation has already started. In a subsequent decision of Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court report in Bhondu v. Rex 50 Cri.L.J. 561 the question came up whether a list of stolen properties banded over to the police sometime after the F.I.R. was lodged would be hit by Section 162, Code of Criminal Procedure. Their Lordship answered the question in the following words: An investigation by the police does not always start immediately after the registration of case by it. It commences with the first step taken by the police towards the ascertainment of the offence and the culprits thereof. The mere fact that an investigating officer starts from the police station to the scene of occurrence after the lodging of the first information, is not commencement of the investigation. It commences with the first step taken by the police towards the ascertainment of the offence and the culprits thereof. The mere fact that an investigating officer starts from the police station to the scene of occurrence after the lodging of the first information, is not commencement of the investigation. The first information lodged with the police may not be a complete document. If during the interval between the first information and taking of some step in the nature of investigation something, which may legitimately he considered to be information supplemental to the first information, is lodged with the police, it need not necessarily be considered to be a statement made during the course of investigation. If once an investigation has actually started, all statements made to the police will naturally fall within the purview of Section 162, and will not be admissible in evidence except to the extent mentioned in that section. What happened in that case was that It list of stolen properties was handed over to the Investigating Officer immediately after be reached the village after recording the F.I.R. at the police station, and this list was held to be admissible in evidence. I am in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Allahabad High Court in the last mentioned case. All that we get from the A.S.I. regarding the investigation carried on by him after recording the F.I.R. at the Police Station is that he examined Saraswati (P.W. 2) regarding the articles stolen from her room. But Saraswati was not in a proper frame of mind and she could not furnish any list. Thereafter the A.S.I. went to the house of P.Ws. 1 and 2 and recorded the list of properties stolen from P.W. 1's room. There is nothing on record to indicate that in between the recording of the F.I.R. at the police station and the addition of the list of stolen properties to the F.I.R. (Ext. 1) any investigation worth the name had been done by the A.S.I. In these circumstances, I would hold that the list of properties subsequently added to the F.I.R. (Ext. 1) is a part of the F.I.R. itself and is not bit by Section 162, Code of Criminal Procedure and as such cannot he excluded from evidence. 5. Ext. 1) any investigation worth the name had been done by the A.S.I. In these circumstances, I would hold that the list of properties subsequently added to the F.I.R. (Ext. 1) is a part of the F.I.R. itself and is not bit by Section 162, Code of Criminal Procedure and as such cannot he excluded from evidence. 5. Ext. 2, as stated before is a supplementary Hat of stolen properties prepared at about 7 or 7-30 A.M. on 19-3-1964 on the statement made by P.W. 2, Saraswati. There is nothing on record to show that by the time the Ext. 2 was prepared, the A.S.I. had made any matrial progress in the investigation of the case except that in the meanwhile he had visited the spot and bad seen the broken boxes and other articles lying in the house. It may be remembered that when P.W. 2 was asked at the Thana in the previous morning to give a list of the properties stolen from her room, she stated that she was not in a proper frame of mind to give any list and that she would furnish it later. In the circumstances, it appears to me that the list, Ext. 2 furnished by P.W. 2 was only in the nature of information supplement to the first information and can not, be considered to be a statement made during the course of investigation so as to attract the operation of Section 162, Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. I would now take up for consideration the evidence against the Appellant, Kuna Kandi. P.W. 2 Saraswati and her son, Nagendra Kumar (P.W. 3) aged about 17 years have identified him in Court as one of the culprits who on the night of occurrence had entered into their bedroom and had removed properties therefrom. There is evidence to show that in the bed-room where P.Ws. 2 and 3 were sleeping, there was lighted lantern and the culprits were also flashing torch lights inside the room for searching articles. That being so there is nothing surprising in the fact that P.We. 2 and 3 could identify some of the culprits. A.T.I. parade was held by P.W. 6 on 18-8-1964 in the veterinary dispensary of which he was the doctor in respect of the four suspects including the Appellant, Kuna Kandi. The identifying witnesses were P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4; P.Ws. 2 and 3 could identify some of the culprits. A.T.I. parade was held by P.W. 6 on 18-8-1964 in the veterinary dispensary of which he was the doctor in respect of the four suspects including the Appellant, Kuna Kandi. The identifying witnesses were P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4; P.Ws. 3 and 4 being the sons of P.W. 2. Ext. 12 is the report of the T.I. parade. P.W. 6 had deposed that 12 other persons of similar complexion and dressed similarly as the suspects were mixed with the four suspects and one after another of the 4 witnesses were called in to identify them. He had taken the precaution to change the position inter se of the suspects after each witness had finished identification and had ensured that while one witness was called in, the others were kept at a place from which it would not b possible for them to witness the proceeding in the room in which the T.I. parade was being conducted. Accused No. 5, Golak Mundi was not one of the persons who was placed in the T.I. parade. It appears from Ext. 12 that so far Kuna Kandi is concerned, it is only P.W. 2 who had identified him : in the T.I. parade. P.Ws. 1 and 3 had identified some other accused persons who have since been acquitted and P.W. 4 could not identify any body at all. Even at the time of trial, P.W. 4 could not identify any of the accused persons. P.W. 2 could identify Kuna Kandi again in Court and P.W. 3 also did 80 although he could not identify him in the T.I. parade. Nothing has been brought out in the cross-examination either of P.W. 2 or P.W. 3, although they were cross-examined at considerable length on this point, to show that they had any opportunity to see the accused persons before the T.I. parade was held. In the circumstances, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was justified in accepting the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 with regard to their identification of the Appellant, Kuna Kandi as one of the persons who had taken part in the dacoity. With this conclusion of the learned Additional Sessions Judge I entirely agree. In the circumstances, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was justified in accepting the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 with regard to their identification of the Appellant, Kuna Kandi as one of the persons who had taken part in the dacoity. With this conclusion of the learned Additional Sessions Judge I entirely agree. This conclusion receives further corroboration from the confession made by the Appellant, Kuna Kandi before the Magistrate, P.W. 17 although the accused bad subsequently resiled from it in the trial Court. It is argued on behalf of the Appellant, Kuna Kandi that this confession should not have been relied upon, firstly because, in view of the circumstances under which the confession was made, it ought not to have been admitted in evidence and secondly because, even if it is otherwise admissible, it has lost its evidentiary value because it was subsequently retracted. When Kuna Kandi was examined in the sessions Court u/s 342, Code of Criminal Procedure he stated that he did not make the confession out of his own free will or voluntarily but he made it as the police assaulted him severely and induced him to make the confession on the promise to set him free by making him an approver. No such suggestion was made to the Investigating Officer when he was examined in the Court. It appears from the evidence of P.W. 17, the Magistrate that Kuna Kandi was first produced before him for recording his confession at 11 A.M. on 16-5-1964. He gave him the usual warnings that he was a Magistrate that the accused was not bound to make any confession before him and that whatever he would state would be used against him as evidence. He allowed him time for reflection till 18-5-1964. He was again produced on the 18th when he was again cautioned as before. He was asked as to why he was making the confession and he stated that he was a poor man, that his parents and wife were acting and that he committed the crime due to bad company and, therefore, he was determined to speak the truth whatever might be the consequences. The Magistrate says that from the examination of the accused, he was fully satisfied that the latter was going to make the confession voluntarily and out of his own free will and that he was not under any duress. The Magistrate says that from the examination of the accused, he was fully satisfied that the latter was going to make the confession voluntarily and out of his own free will and that he was not under any duress. On the 18th, he also took the precaution of closing the doors of his Court room to ensure that no out-side would be in a position to see the accused or vice versa. He was also satisfied that no police officer was anywhere round about the Court building. It is in this setting and in the circumstances stated above that the Appellant, Kuna Kandi made the confessional statement that in the preceding month of Magha, he along with accuse (sic) No. 5. Golak Mundi and others committed the dacoity in the house of a Brahmin of Mouza Sagadi and removed there from several articles already referred to above. P.Ws. 1 to 4 are not Brahmins and are Khandayats by caste. But Khandayats also put on sacred thread as Brahmins do. As P.W. 3 had a sacred thread, he was obviously mistaken for a Brahmin. Some of the articles mentioned in the confessional statement as having been stolen from the house in Sagadi mouza were recovered from the house of the Appellant, Golak Mundi and from the house of some other accused persons who have since been acquitted in the trial Court. I would presently show that some of the recovered articles are satisfactorily identified as the articles stolen from the house of P.Ws. 1 to 4. These circumstances lend further assurance to the truth of the confessional statement. 7. The Appellant contends that a retracted confession cannot be accepted. The mere fact that a confession is retracted does not by itself make it inadmissible in evidence unless it is shown that it was improperly induced. If there is no evidence to show that the confession has been made either due to threat or inducement, it can be admitted in evidence. The evidentiary value depends upon the circumstances of each case as to what weight is to be attached to it. As a matter of prudence and caution which has sanctioned itself as a rule of law, a retracted confession cannot he made the sole basis for conviction unless the same is corroborated in material particulars. The evidentiary value depends upon the circumstances of each case as to what weight is to be attached to it. As a matter of prudence and caution which has sanctioned itself as a rule of law, a retracted confession cannot he made the sole basis for conviction unless the same is corroborated in material particulars. That however does not mean that each and every circumstance mentioned in the confession regarding the complicity of the accused must be separately and independently corroborated. It would be sufficient if the general trend of the confession is substantiated by some evidence, which could tally with what is contained in the confession. In this case the confession made by Kuna Kandi in its broad features has been corroborated by the established fact that a dacoity had been committed in the house of P.Ws. 1 to 4 on the night of 17-3-1964 and some of the stolen properties were recovered from the house of one of the persons who according to the confessional statement had taken part in the dacoity. Kuna Kandi, the accused has been identified by P.Ws. 2 and 3 as one of the miscreants. In the circumstances, I find that the independent evidence of complicity of Kuna Kandi in the dacoity receives corroboration from his confessional statement and his complicity in the dacoity has been established beyond any doubt. His conviction must therefore be maintained and his appeal dismissed. 8. The conviction of Golak Mundi, Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 163 of 1966 rests, as stated before, on the recovery of stolen properties from his house and the confession of his co-accused, Kuna Kandi in which the latter had implicated Golak as one of the dacoits. On 13.5.1964 : the officer-in-charge of Kendrapara P.S. searched the house of Golak Mundi on receiving requisition for the same for the Kissan nagar P.S. P.Ws. 14 and 15 are witnesses to the seizure and Ext. II is the seizure list. 9 items of jewellery were recovered from his house out of which item 2 (M.O. VII), pair of Paunja; item No. 5 (M.O. VIII), silver bangles; and item No. 6 (M.O. VI) silver gotha had been identified by P.W. 1 as belonging to her. Item No. 1, a pair of silver Pabuda (M.O. XII) and item No. 4, a pair of silver ruli bala (M.O. XIII) were identified by P.W. 2 as belonging to her. Item No. 1, a pair of silver Pabuda (M.O. XII) and item No. 4, a pair of silver ruli bala (M.O. XIII) were identified by P.W. 2 as belonging to her. The recovery of these articles excepting M.O. VII from the house of Golak Mundi is not disputed. In fact, Golak Mundi, in his statement in Court has stated that all the articles excepting M.O. VII belong to him. So far M.O. VII (a pair or silver Paunja) is concerned, his case is that a pair of silver paunja had in fact been recovered from his house but M.O. VII is not that pair of Paunja. No such suggestion was ever made to any of the search witnesses that M.O. VII has been substituted for another pair of silver paunja recovered from the house of the accused. In fact, M.O. VII has been identified by P.W. 15 as one of the articles recovered from the house of Golak Mundi. M.O. VII which is item No. 2 in the seizure list (a Pair of silver Paunja) is described as weighing 9 tolas and it tallies with item No. 17 in the F.I.R. list, Ext. 1 although the weight mentioned there is 10 tolas. The difference in weight is negligible because what P.W. 1 stated is on guess whereas the articles seized were actually weighed. P.W. 1 had identified this article not only in Court but also in the T.I. parade held for the purpose as can be seen from the T.I. parade report, Ext. 8. Item No. 6 in the seizure list is a silver Gotha weighing 241/8 tolas. But in the F.I.R. Ext. 1 the silver Gotha in item No. 16 is mentioned as 21 tolas in weight and is described as "Lata chhancha Gotha with red stone". Item No. 6 in the seizure list however does not answer to this description. Hence it has be held that M.O. VI is not proved as one of the properties stolen from the house of P.W. 1. P.W. 1 had identified M.O. VIII as belonging to her and it corresponds to item No. 5 in Ext. 11 which is described as 12 pieces of silver bangles. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has held that the identity of M.O. VIII is not established on the ground that in item No. 18 in the F.I.R., Ext. P.W. 1 had identified M.O. VIII as belonging to her and it corresponds to item No. 5 in Ext. 11 which is described as 12 pieces of silver bangles. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has held that the identity of M.O. VIII is not established on the ground that in item No. 18 in the F.I.R., Ext. 1, P.W. 1 had mentioned only 6 pieces of silver bangles. I am unable to accept this conclusion because the other 6 pieces mentioned in item No. 5 of Ext. 11 may belong to the accused. I, therefore, hold that the identity of M.O. VIII (6 pieces of silver bangles) is also established. 9. Item No. 1 in the seizure list is a pair of silver of Pahuda weighing 19 1/2 tolas and P.W. 2 has identified the same as belonging to her. Item No. 8 of the supplementary list, Ext. 2 is mentioned as a rupa Pahuda and is described as "Khiladia Panasarakam ribiribi chinha thai" which according to the learned Additional Sessions Judge fully tallies with the description of the article seized in the case although the weight of this articles is not mentioned in Ext,. 2. Yet having regard to the identity in the appearance and the fact that P.W. 2 has identified it, I accept the conclusion of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that M.O. XII is one of the stolen articles. Item No. 4 in Ext. 11 is a pair of silver ruli (bala) having a weight of 5 tolas which is indentified by P.W. 2 as belonging to her and it corresponds with item No. 12 in Ext. 2. In support of his case that all the seized items excepting M.O. VII belong to him, the accused Golak Mundi examined D.W. 3 who stated that the articles belong to Golak's mother and wife. According to Golak Mundi M.Os. VI, and XII, are ornaments worn by his wife and M.Os. VIII and XIII belong to his mother who is since dead. It is elicited from D.W. 3 that Golak's wife never appears before him (D.W. 3.) The learned Additional Sessions Judge has, therefore, rightly observed that D.W. 3 is not a person who is competent to identify these ornaments. It, therefore, follows that M.Os. VIII and XIII belong to his mother who is since dead. It is elicited from D.W. 3 that Golak's wife never appears before him (D.W. 3.) The learned Additional Sessions Judge has, therefore, rightly observed that D.W. 3 is not a person who is competent to identify these ornaments. It, therefore, follows that M.Os. VII, VIII, XII and XIII recovered from the house of Golak Mundi have been proved to be same of the properties stolen from the house of P.Ws. 1 and 2. These articles were recovered from the house of Golak Mundi on 13-5-1964: i.e., about 2 months after the dacaity take place in the house of P.W. 1 and 2. The presumption is that Golak Mundi is either the thief himself a receiver of the stolen properties. It is not his case that he had in good faith received the properties from any other person. In fact, his plea is that all these articles belong to him. In the confessional statement by Kuna Kundi he had implicated Golak Mundi as one of the dacaits. It is however contended an behalf of the Appellant, Golak Mundi that the retracted confession of a co-accused cannot be utilised against him, It is clears from Section 30 of the Evidence Act that when mare than one person are being tried jointly far the same offence, and a confession made by are of such persons affecting himself and any of his co-accused is proved, such a confession can be taken into consideration by the Court not only against the maker of the confession but also against the co-accused . The Indian Evidence Act nowhere provides that if the confession is retracted, it cannot be taken into consideration against the co-accused are the accused or the accused making the confession. But an examination of the reported decisions of the High Courts and the Supreme Court it is clear that although the confession may be taken into consideration against the ca-accused by virtue of Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, its value is extremely weak and should not form the basis of conviction without the fullest and strangest corroborating in material particulars not only regarding the factum of the crime but also regarding the connection of the accused with the crime. The Court has to came to an independent conclusion regarding the guilt of the accused an the basis of other independent evidence adduced by the prosecution. In other words, the confession of a co-accused comes into use only when the other evidence against an accused is of such a nature as to be sufficient in itself to establish his guilt and yet the Court hesitates to rely upon it. In such a case if there is also a confession of a co-accused it serves to lend assurance to the belief in the other evidence and to fortify the Court's faith in it. Thus the only limited use which can be made of the confession of a co-accused is by way of furnishing an additional reason for believing such other evidence as exists. Here, the facts found are that a dacoity had taken place in the house of P.Ws. 1 and 2 on the night of 17-3-1964 and several articles including jewellery were taken away by the dacoits. Some of the stolen properties were recovered from the house of Accused Golak Mundi on 13-5-1964 and he has failed to give a satisfactory account as to their possession. Section 114 allows a presumption to be drawn in the circumstances that Golak Mundi is either the thief himself or a receiver of stolen properties. He himself has not offered any explanation that he has received these articles in good faith from any other person. In the circumstances the Court would be justified in coming to the conclusion that he is a thief notwithstanding the fact that a period of two months had elapsed between the dacoity and the seizure of the stolen articles from his house. In the circumstances the retracted confession of accused No. 1 in which he had implicated Golak Mundi as one of the dacoits can be relied upon to lend assurance to the conclusion that Golak Mundi was one of a dacoity, I, therefore, hold that Golak Mundi has also been rightly convicted of the charge u/s 395, Indian Penal Code. 10. In the result, both the appeals fails and are dismissed. In dealing with the disposal of the seized articles, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has ordered that M.O. VIII (6 pieces of silver bangles) should be returned to Golak Mundi. 10. In the result, both the appeals fails and are dismissed. In dealing with the disposal of the seized articles, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has ordered that M.O. VIII (6 pieces of silver bangles) should be returned to Golak Mundi. But in view of my finding that it has been established as one of the articles stolen from the room of P.W. 1, M.O. VIII should be returned to her. Subject to this modification, the order regarding disposal of the seized articles is confirmed. Final Result : Dismissed