Four accused, Chinmoy Langthasa, Lakhi Kanta Singh Khemon Singh Thousen and Joytolal Kemprai, were prosecuted for an offence punishable under section 302/34, Penal Code, for having committed murder of Purna Bahadur Sarki on 29.9.79, 'before the Deputy Commissioner, N.C. Hills, State of Assam. The four accused were found guilty for the offence under section 324/34, Penal Code and they were convicted as such. Except accused Chinmoy Langthasa, the other three accused were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-each, and in default of payment of fine, to suffer further six months simple imprisonment. Accused Chinmoy Langthasa, having regard to his age and educational career, was allowed to go on probation for a period of two years, on execution of bond of Rs. 2,000/-with one surety of the like amount and in the meantime to keep peace and be of good behaviour during the period. Accused Lakhi Kanta preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No.33 (J) of 1982 and the other two accused Khemon Singh Thousen and Joytolal Kemprai, preferred a joint appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 1982 against the convi­ction and sentence aforesaid. 2. The prosecution case may be stated briefly as follows. On 22.9.79, at about 7 P.M. Lok Bahadur Thapa and deceased Puma Bahadur Sarki were proceeding towards their houses at Natun Basti. When they reached the Railway colony near a field, one person came from behind and started quarreling with the deceased. They reached near a Puja Pandel celebrated in that year, when accused Lakhi Kanta Singh brought the other three accused. The four accused assaulted both of them. The deceased defended himself with the help of the umbrella which he had with him. The witness, who sustained injury on his body, ran towards the shop of one Nepali and waited there for about 15 minutes. The deceased did not turn up and then he left for home. Meanwhile, Priyatosh Das, who was the driver of N.F. Railway, Haflong found a person lying on the ground in the railway field in the evening of 29.9.79. He reported orally to the Police on duly in the Puja Mandap in the railway field. The police came and took the injured in a Police truck. It appears that the injured succumbed to the injuries. The police started investigation by registering case for the offence under section 302, Penal Code. He reported orally to the Police on duly in the Puja Mandap in the railway field. The police came and took the injured in a Police truck. It appears that the injured succumbed to the injuries. The police started investigation by registering case for the offence under section 302, Penal Code. On a report by S.I. Diptendra Biswas made on 1.10.79, investigation was taken up. Inquest was held on the dead body and thereafter post mortem examination was held by the Medical officer Dr. S.K. Sarkar on 30.9.79. In the course of the investigation, the policy also seized one umbrella produced by the accused Lakhi Kanta Singh. All the four accused gave confessions before the Magistrate Sri A.K. Malakar. Confessions of accused Lakhi Kanta, Khemon Singh Thousen and Chinmoy Langthasa were recorded on 10.10.79 and they are Exhibits 6, 7 and 8 respectively. Confession of accused Joytolal Kemprai, Ext. 9, was recorded on 11.10.79. Identifica­tion parade was conducted on 22.10.79 before the Magistrate S.C. Longmailal, P.W. 11, in which P.W. 2, Lok Bahadur Thapa, iden­tified only one accused Lakhi Kanta Singh but he failed to identify the other three accused. Investigating officer examined a number of witnesses and submitted charge sheet against the four accused to stand their trial under section 302/34, Penal Code. The learned Deputy Commissioner found the accused guilty of the offence under section 324/34 I.P.C. and awarded sentence as aforesaid on the three accused except accused Chinmoy Langthasa. 3. The conviction of the four accused rested on the following evidence, viz. (i) the evidence of P.W. 2 Lok Bahadur Thapa, who claimed to be the eye witness of the occurrence, (ii) Iden­tification of the accused Lakhi Kanta Singh, (iii) Recovery of umbrella as produced by Lakhi Kanta, (iv) Judicial confessions, Exts, 6, 7, 8 and 9. 4. I There is no doubt that the deceased died from the injuries sustained on 29.9.79. The Medical officer who held autopsy on the dead body found the following injuries, viz. (i) one incised and penetrating wound 2J" above and lateral to the right steno clavicle joint transferal placed length 1/2", breadth 1/2",, at the middle, tapering to the pointed ends interiorly and posterior; depth 1/2" directed backwards and downwards involving the vessels of the right side neck and other soft tissues at the site of the injury. (i) one incised and penetrating wound 2J" above and lateral to the right steno clavicle joint transferal placed length 1/2", breadth 1/2",, at the middle, tapering to the pointed ends interiorly and posterior; depth 1/2" directed backwards and downwards involving the vessels of the right side neck and other soft tissues at the site of the injury. In his opinion, the injuries were antimortem and the injured died of syncope (shock and hemorrhage), as a result of the injuries sustained on the body. 5. The only point for determination is as to whether the accused are authors of the crime. It is not necessary to discuss evidence of other witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution. The evidence of P.W.2 on which reliance was placed by the prose­cution, suffers from serious infirmity and cannot be relied on. After he and deceased were assaulted by the culprits, he ran to the shop of Deo Bahadur Pradhan (P.W.I6) who ran a pan shop. He purchased a packet of cigarettes and met also there ofl6 Pijus Das P.W. 2 admitted that he did not narrate to P.W. 16 Deo Bahadur Pradhan and Pijus Das, who has not been examined as an witness, about the occurrence. P.W. 16, Deo Bahadur Pradhan, admitted that P.W. 2 did not tell him anything about the occu­rrence. Though P.W. 2 sustained bleeding injuries, P.W. 16 had not spoken a word about any injury on the body of P.W. 2. It is surprising when his companion had not returned after they were attacked by some culprits, he would not report to any body that day and that he went back home. The oral testimony of P.W.2 in regard to the occurrence cannot as such be relied on at all. 6. In regard to identification, evidence of P.W. 2 cannot also be accepted. The night of occurrence was dark. He could recog­nise only accused Lakhi Kanta but not the other accused. He did not know the name of the accused Lakhi Kanta from before the occurrence and came to know his name from the prosecution1 counsel. But the witness had seen accused Lakhi Kanta at the police station after about a week of the occurrence, when the officer-in-Charge, Haflong police station, called him at the police Station. The identification in the test identification parade condu­cted by P.W. 11 S.C. Longmailai is as such of no value at all. But the witness had seen accused Lakhi Kanta at the police station after about a week of the occurrence, when the officer-in-Charge, Haflong police station, called him at the police Station. The identification in the test identification parade condu­cted by P.W. 11 S.C. Longmailai is as such of no value at all. The witness identified the accused Lakhi Kanta in the Court, for the first time. 7. As regards the recovery of the umbrella, there is no evidence to show that it was recovered at the instance of the accu­sed Lakhi Kanta within the meaning of section 27 of the Evi­dence Act. That apart, there is no identification mark in the umbrella, as admitted by P.W. 2 Lok Bahadur Thapa in Cross-examination. None of the injuries could be caused by the umb­rella. The recovery of the umbrella from the possession of the accused Lakhi Kanta even if accepted, does not assist the prosecution in the least. 8. Dealing with the confessions of the accused, all the confessions Exhibits 6,7,8 and 9 are inadmissible in evidence. The Magistrate. A. K. Malakar, P.W. 19, who recorded the confessions admitted in cross-examination that he recorded the statements of all four accused persons on solemn affirmation. Confessio­nal statement of accused cannot be taken on solemn affirmation. All the accused retracted the confessions in the course of the trial. There is no independent evidence to corroborate the retrac­ted confession even. As a rule of law and prejudice, retracted confession is to be corroborated by independent evidence to sust­ain conviction of the accused on retracted confession. There is no independent evidence to corroborate these retracted confessions, even if they are to held to be admissible. The confessions, there­fore, cannot be acted upon and no conviction can be sustained on these confessions. The conviction of the four accused persons are as such not sustainable in law, and as such, the four accused persons are acquitted of the offence under section 324/34, Penal Code. In the result, the two appeals are allowed. The conviction and sentences are set aside. Accused on bail need not surrender to the bail bonds. Accused Lakhi Kanta Singh, who is in jail, shall be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in conn­ection with other cases.