JUDGEMENT Sangma, J. :- The questions that fall for the determination in these appeals are : (1) whether Jitan Das (the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 173(J)/93) 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. 147/93) could also be convicted on the basis of the disclosures made in the confession of Jiten Das. 2. The case for prosecution was as follows : At 8.45 a.m. on 20-8-88, Dambaru Hazarika of village Metera Gaon (P.W. 1) lodged FIR (Ext. 1) at Sotea P. S. stating that at 6.30 p.m. of 18-8-88 his 14 year old son, Jayanta Hazarika, went with Debo Hazarika of his village to Sotea Center for sewing cloth but did not return home; and that after vigorously searching for 3 days he found his deadbody from a road side drain at Gareki gaon. He stated that he suspected murder by some one. On this FIR Sotea P. S. registered a case No. 68/88 under Section 302, I. P.C., on 20-8-88. Initially none was shown as accused in the case. On that day the I/O (P.W. 7) went to Gareki Gaon and found the dead body with, (1) 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 peeled off, (5) abrassions of chest. He recorded then in the inquest report and sent the deceased for post mortem. On 21-8-88 the Doctor (P.W. 8) performed postmortem examination and noted in post mortem report that that in his opinion the death was due to shock and hemorrhage resulting from head injury. Thereafter the I/O got some clue and arrested Jiten Das, on 24-8-88 and arrested Jogan Das and Gurcharan 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 date 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. The confession (Ext. 3) was as follows : "The occurrence dates back to Thursday the 18th day 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. The confession (Ext. 3) was as follows : "The occurrence dates back to Thursday the 18th day 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 Betha Ram. I called him there for taking tea. I finished drinking tea. It was about 10.30 p.m. Suddenly picking up a brick Jogen Das hit Jayanta once one 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 'khukri 1'. The tea stall owner, Betha Ram, poured hot water on the person of Jayanta. Jayanta died as he was strangled and gagged. We put Jayanta in a sack 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 Jogan Das had a dispute with Jayanta's father over land". 3. On that day (29-8-88) the I/O arrested Betharam Das. Thereafter on that day the I/O seized one raleigh cycle with a 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 of water without a lid by a seizure list (Ext. 8) noting that it was identified by accused Betharam Das in presence of witnesses - (1) Kashab Ch. Baruah, Head Constable and (2) Surya Bhuyan of village Bhuyan Gaon. He seized one brick bat mea suring 4 1/2" 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 wit nesses : (1) Keshab Ch. Barua, Head Constable (2) Jogan Das. On 29-8-88, he seized one old Hercules bicycle with a carrier 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 wit nesses : (1) Keshab Ch. Barua, Head Constable (2) Jogan Das. On 29-8-88, he seized one old Hercules bicycle with a carrier by a seizure list (Ext. 10) that it was used by Jiten Das in the occurrence (sic) seized, in presence of witnesses : (1) Indreswar Saikia (2) Dharmeswar Das. On 30-8-88, he ar rested Deba Hazarika. He examined some witnesses and submitted charge sheet under Section 302/201, I. P.C. against the 4 appellants and one Debo Hazarika. The Judicial Magistrate committed the case (G. R. Case No. 1308/88) to the Court of Sessions of trial. 4. On 2-1-92 the learned Additional Judge, Tezpur, framed charge against the appellants and Debo Hazarika under Section 302/201 I. P.C. All the accused pleaded not guilty and accused Jiten Das retracted the confession. The prosecution therefore examined 8 P.Ws. out of whom P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 6, P.W. 7 and P.W. 8 alone have given evidence on relevant facts. None of the witness of seizure was examined and seized articles were not exhibited in the trial. The I/O 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 Cr. P.C. As no material was four against Debo Hazarika, he was not examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C. The appellants did not examine witness for defence. 5. In the judgment passed on 22-7-93 the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Shri A. K. Baruah) found no material in the evidence against Debo Hazarika; so he acquitted him of the charges. But he found that accused Jiten Das voluntarily confessed his guilt which showed he alongwith 3 other appellants as saulted Jayanta to death and thereafter by carrying the dead body in cycle threw it into water hyacinth to destroy evidence and that those facts were cor roborated by discoveries and seizures. From the evidence of P.W. 1 he found that the accused Jogen Das and Gurcharan Das who are sons of his father younger sister had dispute with him over the issue of paternal properties. From the evidence of P.W. 1 he found that the accused Jogen Das and Gurcharan Das who are sons of his father 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 deadbody 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 has made a brief submission that the confession of Jiten Das was not voluntary because after arresting him on 24 -8-88 the I/O 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 3 1/2 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. C. R. De and N. S. Deka, learned counsel for the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 147/93 made better submission for all the appellants includ ing Jiten Das. They maintained that some kind of corroboration from independent source as necessary to conflict the accused who retracted confession and better kind of corroboration was necessary to con vict the co-accused on the basis of retracted confes sion of one accused. In support of the case of Jiten Das they relied on 2 authorities : (1) Subramania Goundan v. State of Madras, AIR 1988 SC 66 : (1958 Cri LJ 238). 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 the retraction in the case of confession are not true and (2) Pyare Lal v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1963 SC 1094 : (1963 (2) Cri LJ 178). 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. 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. It cannot even be laid down as an inflexible rule of practice or prudence that under no circumstances such convic tion 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 un less the Court is satisfied that a retracted confession is true and voluntarily made and has been corrobo rated in material particulars. Where the High Court having regard to this principle looked for corrobora tion 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. 147/93, Mr. De he relied on 2 authori ties : (1) Nathu v. State of U. P., AIR 1956 SC 56 : (1956 Cri LJ 152). There it was held that confessions 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 assur ance to that conclusion and for fortifying it, and (2) Ram Prakash v. State of Punjab, AIR 1959 SC 1 : (1959 Cri LJ 90). 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 P.Ws. examined by prosecution, the evidence of P.W. 1 (informant), P.W. 6 (magistrate) who recorded confession, P.W. 8 (Doctor who did postmortem) and P.W. 7 (the I/O) alone are relevant for determination of these appeals. 8. In the instant case out of 8 P.Ws. examined by prosecution, the evidence of P.W. 1 (informant), P.W. 6 (magistrate) who recorded confession, P.W. 8 (Doctor who did postmortem) and P.W. 7 (the I/O) alone are relevant for determination of these appeals. The other P.Ws. did not say anything against any of the appellants; so they were not even cross-examined for the defence postmortem doctor's evidence is -- the death was due to shock and hemorrhage resulting from the head injury. This is nut disputed by defence. P.W. 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 a dispute between him and accused Jogen and Gurcharan who were sons of his father's sister over the issue of paternal property. The I/O 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 I/O stated that the seized articles were not shown to him at the trial. 9. Under Section 100(4) Cr. P.C. the I/O must search and seize incriminating article in presence of witnesses. In compliance with this provision the I/O has shown in the seizure list that all seizures were made in presence of two witnesses. But the prosecu tion 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 state ments made in the retracted confession of Jiten Das, is the evidence of I/O. It was held the Mustt. Dalbir Kaur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1977 SC 472 : (1977 Cri LJ 273), that the term 'interested witness' postu lates 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. Dalbir Kaur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1977 SC 472 : (1977 Cri LJ 273), that the term 'interested witness' postu lates 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 I/O who, after the confession was recorded, made seizure of the articles and submitted that charge sheet against the appellants. It cannot, therefore, be dis puted that the I/O had direct interest in seeing that the accused persons were convicted. In Babu v. State of U. P., AIR 1980 SC 443 : (1980 Cri LJ 392), it was held that the evidence of interested witness should be scrutinised with care; and can rely on them only when it is corroborated. In view of these decisions and also in our own view, the sole evidence of the I/ O (P.W. 7) cannot be made use of as corroborating evidence to convict Jiten Das and, for that matter, to convict the three other accused. 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 forth with from the jail. Appeal allowed.