J. Sangma, J— The question that fall for the determination in these appeals are : (1) whether Jiten Das (the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.173(J) of 8 1993) could be convicted on the basis of the confession which he retracted; and (2) whether Jogen Das, Gurucharan Das and Betharam Das (3) appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 147 of 1993) could also be convicted on the basis of the disclousres made in the confession of Jiten Das. 2. The case for prosecution was as follows : At 8.45 AM of 20.8.88 Dambaru Hazarika of village Metera Gaon (PW 1) lodged FIR (Ext 1) at Sotea PS stating that at 6.30 PM of 18.8.88 his 14 year old son, Jayanta Hazarika, went with Debo Hazarika of his village to Sotea Centre for sewing cloth but did not return home; and that after vigorously searching for 3 days he found his dead body from a road side drain at Gereki Gaon. He stated that he suspected murder by some one. On this FIR Sotea PS registered Case No. 68/88 under section 302 IPC on 20.8.88. Initially none was shown as accused in the case. On that day the IO (PW 7) went to Gereki Gaon and found the dead body with (I) mark of wound on left side of head, (2) left ear missing, (3) mark of wound on back side of head, (4) skin of left hand pealed off, (5) abrassions of chest. He recorded them in the inquest report and sent the deceased for post mortem. On 21.8.88 the Doctor (PW 8) performed post mortem examination and noted in post mortem report that in his opinion the death was due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from head injury. Thereafter the IO got some clue and arrested Jiten Das on 24.8.88 and arrested Jogen Das and Gurucharan Das on 25.8.88. He kept them in police custody for 3 days by obtaining order from the Magistrate. On 28.8.88 he produced them to Magistrate with report that Jiten Das was confessing the guilt. On that day the Magistrate remanded them to judicial custody. On the next day 29.8.88 Jiten Das was produced from judicial custody and the Magistrate recorded his confession. Thfe confession (Ext 3) was as follows : "The occurrence dates back to Thursday the 18lh clay of August, 1988 prior to the last Thursday. It was about 10.30 O' clock at night. On the next day 29.8.88 Jiten Das was produced from judicial custody and the Magistrate recorded his confession. Thfe confession (Ext 3) was as follows : "The occurrence dates back to Thursday the 18lh clay of August, 1988 prior to the last Thursday. It was about 10.30 O' clock at night. Having met Jayanta Das at Sootea, Gurudas, Jogen Das and I called him to the tea stall of Bctha Ram. I called him there for taking tea. I finished drinking tea. It was about 10.30PM. Suddenly picking up a brick Jogen Das hit Jayanta once on the head. When Jayanta fell down he (Jogen) strangled Jayanta. I gagged Jayanta with a gamocha. Gurudas tied the legs and hands of Jayanta with rope. Gurudas chopped off the left ear of Jayanta with a 'khukhri'. The tea stall owner, Bctha Ram, poured hot water on the person of Jayanta. Jayanta died as he was strangled and gagged. We put Jayanta in a sac and then took him away on his (Jayanta's) bicycle. There is a river at Gerekigaon. We threw him into the water hyacinth there and then we the four came back. Jayanta was killed as Jogen Das had a dispute with Jayanta's father over land." 3. On that day (29.8.88) Id arrested Betharam Das. Thereafter on that day the IO seized one Releigh cycle with carrier by a seizure list (Ext 7) showing that it was used in the occurrence and seized from the custody of accused Jogen Das and witnessed by (1) Indreswar Saikia, and (2) Nirmal 'Das. He also seized one aluminium pan used for boiling water without a lid by a seizure list (Ext.8) noting that it was indentified by accused Betharam Das in presence of witnesses (1) Keshab Chandra Baruah, Head Constable, and (2) Surya Kama Bhuyan of Village Bhuyan Gaon. He seized one brick bat measuring 4½" by a seizure list (Ext.9) by noting that it was seized near the shop of Betharam Das on being shown by accused Jogen Das in presence of witnesses : (1) Keshab Chandra Baruah, Head Constable, (2) Jogen Das. On 29.8.88 he seized one old Hercules bicycle with a carrier by a seizure list (Ext. 10) noting that it was used by Jiten Das in the occurrence and seized, in presence of witnesses (1) Indreswar Saikia, (2) Dharmeswar Saikia. On 30.8.88 he arrested Debo Hazarika. On 29.8.88 he seized one old Hercules bicycle with a carrier by a seizure list (Ext. 10) noting that it was used by Jiten Das in the occurrence and seized, in presence of witnesses (1) Indreswar Saikia, (2) Dharmeswar Saikia. On 30.8.88 he arrested Debo Hazarika. He examined some witnesses and submitted charge sheet under section 302/201 IPC against the 4 appellants and one Debo Hazarika. The Judicial Magistrate committed the case (GR Case No. 1308/88) to the Court of Sessions for trial. 4. On 2.1.92 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tezpur, framed charge against the appellants and Debo Hazarika under section 302/201 IPC. All the accuseds pleaded not guilty and accused Jiten Das retracted the confession. The prosecution therefore examined 8 PWs. Out of whom PW 1, PW2, PW 6, PW7 and PW 8 alone have given evidence on relevant facts. None of the witness of seizure was examined and seized articles were neither produced nor exhibited in the trial. The IO alone gave evidence as to discovery and seizures made in consonance with the version recorded in the confession. After prosecution was closed the appellants were examined under section 313 CrPC. As b no material was found against Debo Hazarika, he was not examined under section 313 CrPC. The appellants did not examine, witness for defence. 5. In the judgment passed on 22.7.93 the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Sri AK Baruah) found no material in the evidence against Debo Hazarika; so he acquitted him of the charges. But he found that accussed Jiten Das voluntarily confessed his guilt which showed he alongwith 3 other appellant assaulted Jayanta to death and thereafter by carrying the dead body in cycle threw it into water hycianth to destory evidence and that those facts were corroborated by discoveries and seizures. Form the evidence of PW 1 he found that the accused Jogen Das and Gurucharn Das who are sons of his father's younger sister had dispute with him over the issue of paternal properties. On such findings he held that the 4 appellants have killed the deceased by assaulting and pouring hot water near the tea stall of Betharam after which they carried the dead body on bicycle to Geremigaon and threw it into water hyacinth for concealing the evidence. Accordingly, he convicted and sentenced the four appellants as stated. 6. Mr. On such findings he held that the 4 appellants have killed the deceased by assaulting and pouring hot water near the tea stall of Betharam after which they carried the dead body on bicycle to Geremigaon and threw it into water hyacinth for concealing the evidence. Accordingly, he convicted and sentenced the four appellants as stated. 6. Mr. D. Das, learned Amicus Curiae had made a brief submission that the confession of Jiten Das was not voluntary because after arresting him on 24.8.88 the IO kept him in police custody by obtaining order from the Magistrate and produced before the Magistrate only on 28.8.88 and only on that day he was remanded to the judicial custody. He stated that on 29.9.88 the Magistrate after giving him caution gave only 3½ hours which was not sufficient for reflection. He, therefore, submitted that confession could not be said to be voluntary and for that matter Jiten Das could not be convicted on that basis. He placed no authority to support this. 7. Mr. CR De and NS Deka, learned counsel for the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 147 of 1993 made better submission for all the appellants including Jiten Das. They maintained that some kind of corroboration from independent source was necessary to convict the accused who retracted confession and better kind of corroboration was necessary to convict the co-accused on the basis of retracted confession of one accused. In support of the case of Jiten Das they relied on 2 authorities : (1) Subramania Goundan vs. State of Madras, AIR 1958 SC 66 . There it was held that a general corroboration was sufficient to convict the accused who retracted the confession because the Court must feel that the reasons given for retraction in the case of a confession are not true, and (2) Pyare Lal vs. State of Raj as than, AIR 1963 SC 1094 . There it was held: "The retracted confession may form the legal basis of a conviction if the Court is satisfied that it was true and was voluntarily made. But it has been held that the Court shall not base a conviction on such a confession without corroboration. It is not a rule of law, but is only a rule of prudence. But it has been held that the Court shall not base a conviction on such a confession without corroboration. It is not a rule of law, but is only a rule of prudence. It cannot even be laid down as an inflexible rule of practice or prudence that under no circumstances such conviction can be made without corroboration, for a Court may, in particular case, be convinced of the absolute truth of a confession and prepared to act upon it without corroboration; but it may be laid down as a general rule of practice that it is unsafe to rely upon confession much less on a retracted confession unless the Court is satisfied that retracted confession is true and voluntarily made and has been corroborated in material particulars. Where the High Court having regard to this principle looked for corroboration of the retracted confession and found the same, the finding is one of fact." To support the case of the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 147 of 1993 he relied on 2 authorities: (1) Nathu vs. State of UP, AIR 1956 SC 56 . There it was held that confession of co-accused are not evidence as defined in section 3 and no conviction can be founded thereon, but if there was other evidence on which a conviction can be based, they can be referred to as lending assurance to that conclusion and for fortifying it, and (2) Ram Prakash vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1956 SC 1 . There it was held that although recorded confession is admissible against a co-accused by virtue of section 30 of the Evidence Act, as a matter of prudence and practice, a Court would not ordinarily act upon it to convict a co-accused without corroboration in material particulars - both as to the factum of crime and as to the co-accused's connection with that crime. 8. In the instant case out of 8 PWs examined by prosecution, the evidence of PW 1 (informant), PW 6 (Magistrate) who recorded confession, PW 8 (Doctor who did post mortem) and PW 7 (the IO) alone are relevant for determination of these appeals. The other PWs did not say anything against any of the appellants; so they were not even cross examined for the defence. Post mortem doctor's evidence is - the death was due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from the head injury. The other PWs did not say anything against any of the appellants; so they were not even cross examined for the defence. Post mortem doctor's evidence is - the death was due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from the head injury. This is not disputed by defencd. PW 1 is the informant and father of the deceased. At the trial he stated that his son went on cycle but he did not give the particulars of that cycle. He was not a witness of the seizure of cycle and neither the cycle was shown to him to prove that it was the one in which his son went. He stated that there was dispute between him and accused Jogen and Gurucharan who were sons of his father's sister over the issue of paternal property. The IO gave evidence at the trial that he seized the articles on the showing of accused and in presence of witnesses whose names are shown in each seizure list. In cross examination the IO stated that the seized articles were not shown to him at the trial. 9. Under section 100 (4) CrPC the IO must search and seize Incriminating article in presence of witnesses. In compliance with this provision the IO has shown in the seizure list that all seizures were made in presence of two witnesses. But the prosecution did not examine any of those witnesses and none of the articles seized were also exhibited at the trial. So, the only evidence which corroborated the statements made in the retracted confession of Jiten Das is the evidence of IO. It was held in Must Dalbir Kaur vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1977 SC 472 that the term 'interested witness' postulates that the person concerned must have some direct interest in seeing that the accused person is somehow or the other convicted either because he had some animus with the accused or for some other reason. 10. In this case the confession of Jiten Das was recorded by the Magistrate at the instance of the IO who after the confession was recorded, made seizure of the articles and submitted the charge sheet against the appellants. It cannot, therefore, be disputed that the IO had direct interest in seeing that the accused persons were convicted. 10. In this case the confession of Jiten Das was recorded by the Magistrate at the instance of the IO who after the confession was recorded, made seizure of the articles and submitted the charge sheet against the appellants. It cannot, therefore, be disputed that the IO had direct interest in seeing that the accused persons were convicted. In Babu vs. State of UP, AIR 19839 SC 443, it was held that the evidence of interested witness should be scrutinised with care; and could can rely on them only when it is corroborated. In view of the decisions and also in our own view, the sole evidence of the IO (PW 7) cannot be made use of as corroborating evidence to convict Jiten Das and, for that matter, to convict the three other accuseds. 11. In the result, we find that there is merit in both the appeals. Accordingly, we allow both the appeals and set aside their conviction and sentence and direct that all the appellants be released forthwith from the jail.