B. N. MISRA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has been convicted under sections 457 and 380 Indian Penal Code. He has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under section 457 and for six months for the offence under section 380 Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case is briefly noted. The late Sridhar Das was the Mahanta of Ramdas Math in village Sanamantia. During the night between 24th and 25th September, 1978 the door of a room in the Math was broken open and a wall-clock and a bell belonging to the Math were stolen. The Mahanta lodged F. I. R. , Ext. 4, at the police station on 25-9-78 at 3 pm. In the absence of the Officer-in-charge, P. W. 4, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, attached to the police station registered a case under sections 457 and 380 Indian Penal Code against unknown accused persons and took up investigation. On 28-9. 78 the villagers of Samanantia sent for the petitioner and in the presence of the villagers the petitioners admitted that he and his accomplice accused Paramananda bad forcibly entered the Math on the 24th night and removed a bell and a wall-clock from the Math and that while the petitioner had taken the wall-clock, paramananda bad taken the bell. The petitioner was arrested at 4 p. m. on 28. 9-78 by P. W. 4. While in custody of the police the petitioner stated that he had kept the clock in his house and thereafter- he led the police to his house and produced the clock which was seized by P. W. 4 under Ext. 3. The other accomplice Paramananda was next arrested and then police submitted chargesheet against both the accused persons. ( 3 ) AT the trial four witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and three witnesses on behalf of the defence. The defence plea of the petitioner is one of denial. In his statement recorded under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code the petitioner has stated that the allegations of extra-judicial confession and recovery of the clock were all false and that the witnesses bad deposed falsely against him due to previous enmity. The defence plea of the petitioner is one of denial. In his statement recorded under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code the petitioner has stated that the allegations of extra-judicial confession and recovery of the clock were all false and that the witnesses bad deposed falsely against him due to previous enmity. ( 4 ) THE learned Magistrate who tried the case acquitted Paramananda, but convicted and sentenced the petitioner under sections 457 and 380 Indian Penal Code. ( 5 ) THE petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge against his conviction and sentence and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack by his judgment dated 16-11-81 dismissed the petitioner's appeal. Hence this revision. ( 6 ) THERE are no eye-witnesses in this case. Prosecution case rests solely on the following two circumstances: (i) the extra-judicial confession; and (ii) the recovery of the stolen clock: from the house of the petitioner under: seizure list, Ext. 3. P. Ws. 1,2 and 3 are the witnesses to the extra judicial confession and P. Ws. 1,2 and 4 are the witnesses to the recovery of the clock from the house of the petitioner. ( 7 ) MAHANTA Sridhar Das died before the trial of the case and hence he has not been examined. P. Ws. 1,2 and 3 belong to village Sanamantia. The petitioner belongs to the neighbouring village Bedamantia. These three witnesses have consistently stated that on 25-9-78 they learnt about the theft from the Math. On 28-9-78 they sent for the petitioner who came and appeared before them and other villagers. The petitioner voluntarily stated that on the night of occurrence he and his accomplice Paramananda had forcible entered the Math by breaking open the door and had committed theft of a clock and a bell, that while he bad taken the clock, Paramananda had taken the bell and that he was prepared to return the clock. The villagers informed this matter to the police. ( 8 ) D. WS. 1 and 2, examined on behalf of the defence, have stated that if any such occurrence as alleged by the prosecution had taken place in the village on the 24th night, they would have certainly known about it and as they did not know about the theft at the Math on the 24th night, there was no such occurrence. 1 and 2, examined on behalf of the defence, have stated that if any such occurrence as alleged by the prosecution had taken place in the village on the 24th night, they would have certainly known about it and as they did not know about the theft at the Math on the 24th night, there was no such occurrence. This vague statement of the defence witnesses has been rightly rejected by the courts below. The evidence of D. W. 3 does not help the petitioner in any way. On the other hand the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 2 and 3 is consistent and convincing. Nothing has been elicited from these witnesses in their cross-examination to suggest any motive on their part to depose falsely against the petitioner. They are impartial and disinterested witnesses and therefore their evidence must be accepted. Mr. P. K. Routray, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has urged that the extra-judicial confession should not be accepted as the petitioner had been detained in the Math for an unusually long time and had been subjected to duress and pressure. This submission must be out rightly rejected as it is not based on any evidence on record. P. Ws. 1, 2 and 3 have not been cross-examined on this question and there is no evidence that the petitioner had been subjected to any pressure, torture, threat or duress. ( 9 ) THE petitioner in his statement recorded under Section 313 Criminal procedure Code has denied to have made any extra-judicial confession before P. Ws. 1,2 and 3. It is a well-settled preposition of law that though a retracted confession, if believed to be true and voluntarily made, may form the basis of conviction, the rule of practice and prudence requires that it should be corroborated by independent evidence. In the present case the prosecution relied on the recovery of the stolen clock from the house of the petitioner as a circumstance which fully corroborates the extra-judicial confession. ( 10 ) P. W. 4 has stated that he arrested the petitioner and the latter while in custody stated before him that along with Paramanand he had committed theft of the clock and the bell and that he had kept the clock in his house. In this regard P. Ws. 1, 2 and 3 have corroborated P. W. 4. ( 10 ) P. W. 4 has stated that he arrested the petitioner and the latter while in custody stated before him that along with Paramanand he had committed theft of the clock and the bell and that he had kept the clock in his house. In this regard P. Ws. 1, 2 and 3 have corroborated P. W. 4. However, the statement of the petitioner that he had committed theft of the clock and the bell along with Paramananda is admissible in evidence. The other part of the statement that he had kept the clock in his house followed by the actual recovery of the clock from his house on production by him is admissible and thus provides corroboration to the extra-judicial confession. ( 11 ) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has also argued that since the concerned clock has not been produced in court, the prosecution case should not be accepted. The courts below have considered this aspect of the case and I agree with their observations in this regard. P. Ws. 1, 2 and 3 have stated that they were all acquainted with the clock of the Math, that the said wall-clock was seized by the police in their presence from the house of the petitioner on production by him and that they had identified the clock as belonging to the Math. Further P. W. 4 has stated that he had seized the cash memo of the clock from the Mahanta as per seizure list, Ext. 2, and P. Ws. 1 and 4 have stated that the number of the clock noted in the cash memo tallied with the number of the clock seized. In these circumstances non-production of the clock before the court does not affect the veracity of the prosecution case. ( 12 ) UPON consideration I accept the finding of the courts below that the extra-judicial confession made by the petitioner before P. Ws. 1, 2 and 3 has been fully corroborated by the recovery of the stolen clock belonging to the Math from the house of the petitioner on production by him and these circumstances prove the guilt of the petitioner beyond doubt. The prosecution has brought home the charges against the petitioner. ( 13 ) IN the result, the revision is rejected. The conviction and sentence of the petitioner are confirmed. .