G. P. MATHUR, J. This appeal has been preferred from Jail by Prem Singh against the judgment and order dated 20-4-1988 of Sessions Judge, Tehri Garawal in S. T. No. 28 of 1987 whereby he has been convicted under Section 302, IPC and has been sentenced to imprisonment for life. 2. A written first information report was lodged at 9. 30 a. m. on 11-7-1987 at P. S. Narendra Nagar by PW 5 Darshan Lal. It was mentioned in the F. I. R. that on the previous day i. e. on 10-7-1987 at about 6. 30 p. m. he (Darshan Lal) was going towards his house from the side of PPCL, when he heard the shouts being raised by some person on the way from Lalpul to village Setakband. He rushed towards the side and saw that a man, who belonged towards the side of Lawrakha, was assaulting his grand-father Chet Ram with a stone. The assailant, after seeing Dershan Lal approaching, ran away towards Lawrakha in the forest. He chased the assailant but could not succeed in apprehending him. Thereafter, the complainant came near his grand-father who was bleeding and was unconscious and took him to Dehra Dun Hospital for treatment. The Doctor at Dehradun found that Chet Ram was already dead. Since no conveyance was available in the night, the FIR was lodged in the morning. 3. PW 8, Vijai Pal Singh, Station Officer of P. S. Narendra Nagar received the papers of the case and commenced investigation. He arrested the appellant on 12-7-1987 and after completing the investigation submitted charge-sheet on 7-8-1987. The learned Magistrate committed the appellant to the court of sessions to face trial. The appellant was charged under Section 302 IPC, by the learned Sessions Judge to which he pleaded not guilty. The prosecution in support of its case examined in all eight witnesses including two eye-witnesses. The appellant did not examine any witness in defence. In his statement under Section 313, Cr. P. C. the appellant denied the prosecution case and stated that he did not know as to who assaulted the deceased Chet Ram. He further stated that he had given statement Ex. Ka-7 before the Special Judicial Magistrate, Narendra Nagar on 24-7-1987 at the instance of S. I. Police. The Sub-Inspector had told him that in case he confessed the crime, he would get him acquitted. 4. He further stated that he had given statement Ex. Ka-7 before the Special Judicial Magistrate, Narendra Nagar on 24-7-1987 at the instance of S. I. Police. The Sub-Inspector had told him that in case he confessed the crime, he would get him acquitted. 4. In his statement in court PW 5 Darshan Lal stated that he was returning to his house after finishing duty 7. 30 p. m. on 10-7-1987. As soon as he reached Lalpul, he heard some shouts from the way going to Setakband. He rushed to that side and saw that the appellant Prem Singh was assaulting his grand-father by stones. The assailant then ran away. He chased the assailant, meanwhile his uncle Amar Singh enquired as to what had happened and then he told him that Prem Singh had assaulted his grand-father with stone. Both of them then ran behind the assailant, but he managed to make good his escape. Thereafter, both he and his uncle came to the village and narrated the incident and then came to the spot. His grand-father was taken to the hospital where the Doctor declared him dead. He stayed in the hospital in the night and came to his house next morning. From there he again came to the hospital and dictated the FIR to his sister Km. Darshini, which was handed over at the police out-post. In his cross- examination, he has stated that had not seen his uncle Amar Singh prior to the hearing of the shouts being raised by the deceased. The accused had assaulted the deceased with two or three stones. He further stated that the village of the accused is Lawrakha and that he knew him for the last 5/7 years. He further admitted that he did not enquire the name of the accused from Amar Singh. It may be noticed that though the FIR was lodged next day at 9. 30 a. m. but the name of the assailant was not mentioned in the same. On the contrary it has been categorically mentioned in the FIR that the name of the person who had assaulted the deceased was not known to him though he had seen him several times. The prosecution did not hold any Test Identification Parade of the accused Prem Singh. On the contrary it has been categorically mentioned in the FIR that the name of the person who had assaulted the deceased was not known to him though he had seen him several times. The prosecution did not hold any Test Identification Parade of the accused Prem Singh. Since the name of the accused was not mentioned in the FIR, it was absolutely necessary for the prosecution to have held a Test Identification Parade for his arrest. In absence of any Test Identification Parade, the statement of this witness in court, wherein he has stated that the accused, Prem Singh, was assaulting his grand- father cannot be accepted. It is not the case where the FIR of the incident had been lodged soon after the incident in a hurry. On the contrary, the FIR of the incident which took place at 6. 30 p. m. has been lodged after 15 hours at 9. 30 a. m. on the follow ing morning. The complainant had all the time to ascertain the name of the assailant yet by the time the FIR was lodged his name had not been found out. In these circumstances, the statement of PW 5 Darshan Lal as given in court wherein he had straightway stated that accused Prem Singh had assaulted his grand-father cannot be accepted. 5. The only other eye-witness examined by the prosecution is PW 1 Amar Singh. He has stated that at 6. 30 p. m. on 10-7-1987 he was going to Lalpul from his house when he heard the sound of shouting. He saw that accused Prem Singh was running away and Darshan Lal was chasing him. He then enquired from Darshan Lal who told him that Prem Singh was running away after assaulting his grand-father. Thereafter both of them chased the accused, but could not apprehend him. Then they returned to the spot and carried Chet Ram to the Hospital with the help of co villagers. In cross-examination, he has stated that he had seen Chet Ram from a distance of 50/60 paces. They had reached Dehradun Hospital at about 10 p. m. and after the Doctor declared Chet Ram dead, they stayed there in the night. Next morning, he along with Darshan Lal came to the police out-post. PW 1 Darshan Lal was dictating and the Head Constable was writing the FIR. They had reached Dehradun Hospital at about 10 p. m. and after the Doctor declared Chet Ram dead, they stayed there in the night. Next morning, he along with Darshan Lal came to the police out-post. PW 1 Darshan Lal was dictating and the Head Constable was writing the FIR. He has further stated that he knew the accused since his childhood. Darshan Lal had not enquired the name of the assailant as the same was known to him. He had seen Prem Singh running away but had not seen actually causing injuries. He denied that he was giving false statement on account of his relationship. The statement of this witness shows that he had not seen the accused assaulting the deceased Chet Ram but had only seen him running a away. The name of this witness is not mentioned in the FIR, in case the ver sion given by him is correct, then he was in the company of the first informant PW 5 Darshan Lal right from the beginning and remained with him in the night in the Hospital and he accompanied him to police out-post, he claims to have known the accused since his childhood. In such circumstances this witness was bound to disclose the name of the accused to the first infor mant Darshan Lal. If Darshan Lal know the accused from the face and did not know his name as narrated by him in the FIR, he was bound to have enquired the same from Amar Singh, Amar Singh having remained through out in his company, the name of the accused would have been mentioned in the F. I. R. This shows that the version given by PW 1 Amar Singh is not correct and he had neither seen the incident nor he accompanied the first informant to the Hospital. It may also be mentioned here that a written FIR was lodged by Darshan Lal at the Police out-post but he has stated that Darshan Lal was dictating and the Head Constable was recording the same. For all these reasons, we are of the opinion that the statement of PW 1 Amar Singh is not a truthful version and cannot be accepted. 6. PW 2 Km. Darshini is the sister of the informent and she has stated that she scribed the FIR as dictated by Darshan Lal in the hospital on 11-7-1987. For all these reasons, we are of the opinion that the statement of PW 1 Amar Singh is not a truthful version and cannot be accepted. 6. PW 2 Km. Darshini is the sister of the informent and she has stated that she scribed the FIR as dictated by Darshan Lal in the hospital on 11-7-1987. She has admitted in her examination-in-chief itself that she had not seen the occurrence and the same had been seen by Darshan Lal on whose dictation she wrote the FIR. Therefore, her testimony is of a formal nature and does not implicate the appellant. PW 3 Om Prakash, S. I. , P. S. Kotwali has proved the inquest report and other documents prepared by him. PW 4 Ramesh Chandra, Constable, has stated that he took the body of the deceased for post- mortem examination. 7. PW 6 Anil Bhatnagar conducted post-mortem on the body of the deceased at 4. 20 p. m. on 11-7-1987. He found two lacerated wounds on the skull and one abrasion. He also found fracture of skull under both the injuries. In his opinion, the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. In his cross-examination, he has stated that if a man falls from a great height on hard surface, the aforesaid injuries could be caused. 8. PW 8 Vijai Pal Singh has stated that while coming to police out-post Kumaladaonon 11-7-1987 he received the papers of the case. He went to the place of occurrence and collected plain and blood stained earth from the site and also recorded the statement of Amar Singh on the same date. He arrested the accused on 12-7-1987 and after completing investigation, submitted charge-sheet on 7-8- 1987. He denied that he gave any kind of inducement to the accused before his statement was recorded under Section 164, Cr. P. C. 9. PW 7 V. K. Dubey Special Judicial Magistrate Narendra Nagar recorded the statement of the accused under Section 154, Cr. P. C. on 24-7-1987. He has proved the aforesaid statement of the accused which is Ex. Ka-7 on the record. He has stated that before recording the statement of the accused, he had warned him that it was not necessary for him to give any statement and further that in case he gave any statement, the same can be read against him. He has proved the aforesaid statement of the accused which is Ex. Ka-7 on the record. He has stated that before recording the statement of the accused, he had warned him that it was not necessary for him to give any statement and further that in case he gave any statement, the same can be read against him. In his cross-examination he has stated that the accused was brought by police constable but no Sub-Inspector was accompanying him. At the time of recording of the statement, no police personnel were present there and hand-culls had been removed. In his statement under Section 164, Cr. P. C. the accused has stated that at about 3 p. m. on 10-7-1987 he had gone to Raipur to purchase flour. He could not get flour and then he brought half bottle of liquor for Rs. 6. 50. He drank one pag there and remaining at the Bus-stand. He came to PPC1 on a Truck and from there he was going to his village on foot. At about 6. 30 p. m. , he met Chet Ram on the way and a boy was also accompanying him. Each one of them was carrying half bag of Cement. He told them, as to whether they were carrying stolen Cement. He further told him that they should go carefully lest they may be caught. On this, Chet Ram retorted and gave him a filthy abuse. Chet Ram also assaulteded him with a stone which hit him on the back. He (Prem Singh) was under some influence of intoxication. He also picked up a stone and assaulted Chet Ram with a stone. Chet Ram fell down and after getting up again assaulted him with a stone. Thereafter, he (Prem Singh) ran away. 10. It may be noticed here that in his statement under Section 313, Cr. P. C. , the accused has denied the prosecution case. Regarding his confes sion he stated as follows : "mujhe Daroga ne eqbal karaya tha yeh kah kar ki turn eqbal kar dena, mai tumeh bari kar doonga. Bayan mai Daroga ke kahne par diya. " The plain reading of the answer given by the accused with reference to the question put regarding his confession shows that he has retracted from the same. Bayan mai Daroga ke kahne par diya. " The plain reading of the answer given by the accused with reference to the question put regarding his confession shows that he has retracted from the same. A retracted confession is always open to suspicion and cannot be acted upon unless it is corroborated by credible independent evidence. As shown above, there is no other evidence on the record to corroborate the prosecution case regarding the assault alleged to have been made by the accused upon the deceased. That apart, on the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the opinion that it will be highly unsafe to convict the accused only on the basis of the confession alleged to have been made by him. It is true, that PW 7 V. K. Dube has stated that he had warned the accused that it was not necessary for him to make a statement and that the statement given by him could be used against him in evidence. However, at the same time, we cannot ignore the fact that the accused is an illiterate person belonging to a remote hill area. Neither the record nor the statement of PW 7 show that after warning had been given to the accused, he was given any time to think and deliberate about the whole matter. It appears that when the accused was produced before the Magistrate he gave him the warning and immediately thereafter recorded his statement. Where a person accused of having committed a murder is produced before a Magistrate for recording his confession, the proper course is that after giving him warning, ho should be sent back to jail and his statement should be recorded next day, so that he gets at least 24 hours to cooly think about the consequence of the statement which he proposes to give. In a murder case where the sentence cannot be less than life imprisonment, it will be highly unsafe to rely upon a confession which has been recorded immediately after warning the accused without giving him sufficient time to think or consider the consequences of such a statement. As in the present case, the learned Magistrate has recorded the confession of the accused immediately after giving him warning and without giving him sufficient time to think about the matter cooly, we are not inclined to place reliance upon the confession. 11. As in the present case, the learned Magistrate has recorded the confession of the accused immediately after giving him warning and without giving him sufficient time to think about the matter cooly, we are not inclined to place reliance upon the confession. 11. There is another aspect of the matter. It is well-settled that if the confession alone has to form the basis for the conviction of the appellant, then it must be read as whole. A plain reading of the confession (Ex. Ka-7) alleged to have been made by the accused shows that when he told the accused to go carefully lest he is caught, the deceased gave him a filthy abuse and assaulted him with a stone. Thereafter the accused also picked up a stone and assaulted the deceased with the same. The deceased fell down but after getting up, he assaulted the accused again with the stone. If filthy abuse had been given by the deceased and he assulted the accused first throwing a stone upon him, the accused was well within his right to defend himself and to cause injury to the deceased by a stone. A clear case of self-defence is then made out in favour of the accused. 12. Having given our careful consideration to the entire material on record as well as the submission made by Sri Kamal Krishna, who appeared amicus curie for the appellant and Sri S. P. Tiwari learned Addl. Government Advocate, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge against the accused-appellant. 13. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The conviction of the appel lant under Section 302, I. P. C. as well as the sentence imposed upon him is set aside the appellant shall be released forthwith unless he is wanted in some other case. Appeal allowed. .