Basi Reddy, J.- Gundavelli Baliah, aged 20 years, and Tupudu Ramaiah, aged 21 years, have preferred Criminal Appeals Nos. 339 and 340 of 1964 respectively from a judgment of the Sessions Judge, Medak, in Session Case No. 3 of 1964, convicting them under section 302 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code and sentencing each of them to suffer imprisonment for life. Baliah figured as accused No. 1 and Ramaiah figured as accused No. 2 in the Court below. Both the appeals will be disposed of by a common judgment and the accused will be referred to according to their rank in the suit below. The charge against them was that they, along with one Baki Ramiah, aged about 18 (who was taken as approver and was examined as P.W. 1 in the case), had conjointly and in furtherance of their common intention caused the death of two persons named Azimuddin and Bogum Raghavulu, by mixing endrin in ‘sendhi’ knowing that those persons would consume the ‘sendhi’ and had thus rendered themselves liable under section 302 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code. The offence was stated to have been committed on 24th September, 1963 at about sunset time at the cattle-shed of Balakishta Reddy, their master, (who was examined as P.W. 4), which was situate near a well, known as ‘Manchineella bhavi’ at the outskirts of the village of Duddeda. The case for the prosecution is briefly as follows. The two accused, P.Ws. 1, 5, 8 and two others by names Durgiah and Parka Pochiah in all seven persons were at the material time the farm-servants of P.W. 4 (Balakishta Reddy) who was a substantial land owner. Besides other lands, he owns a land near ‘Manchineela bhavi’ near Duddeda Village. The two deceased persons Azeemuddin and Bogum Raghavulu were employed by P.W. 4 to supervise the work of his farm-servants. Azimuddin (who will be referred to hereafter as D-1) was looking after the agricultural operations whereas Raghavulu (who will be referred to as D-2) was looking after the pasture lands. It appears from the evidence of P.W. 4 that A-2 was committing petty thefts and was also negligent in the performance of his duties and D-1 had complained to P.W. 4 against A-2 with the result that P.W. 4 had onone or two occasions deducted some amounts from the salary due to A-2. It appears from the evidence of P.W. 4 that A-2 was committing petty thefts and was also negligent in the performance of his duties and D-1 had complained to P.W. 4 against A-2 with the result that P.W. 4 had onone or two occasions deducted some amounts from the salary due to A-2. D-1 hud also complained to P.W. 4 against P.W. 1 that the latter was not working properly. So also D-1 had complained against A-1. P.W. 4 had reprimanded A-1 and A-2 and P.W. 1 for not attending to their work properly. It further appears from the evidence of P.W. 4 that D-2 had complained also against A-1, A-2 and P.W. 1 saying that they used to let in cattle belonging to outsiders into the grazing lands of P.W. 4 at nights and were taking money from the owners of those cattle. On that score P.W. 4 deducted some amounts from the salary due to these three persons. So it was said that these three farm-servants of P.W. 4 had joined together, as they had a common grouse against the two deceased, and some twenty days before the occurrence they had conspired to do away with the two supervisors and were waiting for an opportunity to execute their plan. About a week prior to the day of occurrence, P.W. 4 left Duddeda to go to some other village. Before he left, he gave a tin of endrin to D-1 to be used for spraying the crops and at the same time warned all the farm-servants that it was a poisonous substance and that after spraying it, they should carefully wash their hands, and directed D-1 to keep the endrin tin in the engine room. On the day of occurrence i.e., 24th September, 1963 in the evening, D-1 got a pot of ‘sendhi’ through A-1 and D-2 got a pot of ‘sendhi’ through P.W. 1. Both of them were in the habit of taking ‘sendhi‘regularly. After the pots were so brought, A-1 and P.W. 1 placed the pots side by side in the open enclosure by the side of the cattle-shed. After sometime D-1 and D-2 went inside the enclosure and each of them took a little of the ‘sendhi’ came out and were sitting at the corner of the cattle-shed, talking to some of the farm-servants. After sometime D-1 and D-2 went inside the enclosure and each of them took a little of the ‘sendhi’ came out and were sitting at the corner of the cattle-shed, talking to some of the farm-servants. It is the prosecution case that A-1 then entered the engine room, put some of the endrin which was in the tin, into a coconut shell and passed it on to A-2, who was standing outside the engine room, through an opening in the wall of the engine room. Thereafter it is alleged that A-2 passed on the coconut shell to P.W. 1. A-1 then came out of the engine room, took the coconut shell from the hands of P.W. 1, went into the enclosure where the two pots of ‘sendhi were, put some of of endrin into both the ‘sendhi’ pots and quietly came out. Then the three of them i.e., A-1, A-2 and P.W. 1 skulked away from there. The suggestion of the prosecution is that endrin had been put in this manner into the ‘sendhi’ pots with full knowledge that the ‘sendhi’ would be consumed by D-1 and D-2. Things happened according to plan. D-1 and D-2 went inside the enclosure a short while later, and each of them drank a little ‘sendhi’ out of the pots, came out and complained that it was smelling and tasting bad. D-1 felt so restless that he went and lay down in front of his cottage, adjoining the engine room, complaining of severe pain in the stomach. Likewise D-2 who was feeling very uneasy, walked away to his house. Sometime later, it is said, A-1 brought some food for D-1, but the latter could not eat more than a morsel. A native doctor was called by one of the farm-servants and he tried to give D-1 some curd, presumably as an antidote. D-1, however, could not gulp it and expired within a few minutes. After reaching his house, D-2 complained to his wife (P.W. 9) that he was feeling very bad and further told her that the farm-servants had put something in the ‘sendhi’ and he was having a burning sensation inside the stomach. He tried to eat some food, but could not take more than a few morsels. He lay down on the bed and died shortly thereafter. All this happened in the early part of the night of 24th September, 1963. He tried to eat some food, but could not take more than a few morsels. He lay down on the bed and died shortly thereafter. All this happened in the early part of the night of 24th September, 1963. At about 10 p.m. that night, Konda Reddy, the police patel, was informed by his ‘Seth Sindhi’ that D-1 and D-2, who were aged 60 and 75 respectively, and who had been hale and healthy till the evening of the previous night had died suddenly at P.W. 4’s well near the village. On the basis of that information, the police patel sent his report, Exhibit P-13, on the morning of 25th September, 1963 to the Sub-Inspector of Police (Rural), Siddipet. That report was received by P.W. 12, the Sub-Inspector of Police in charge of Siddipet Rural police station at 9-15 a.m. on 25th September, 1963. He registered the case under section 174, Criminal Procedure Code, issued the First Information Report and sent it to the concerned Magistrate. On the same day he reached Duddeda Village and held inquests over the two dead bodies. He seized several articles from the scene of occurrence and among the articles seized were a brass ‘lota’ (M.O. 1); two ‘kitties’, that is to say, pots (M.O. 2); a glass tumbler (M.O. 3); a tin (M.O. 4) and a coconut shell (M.O. 5). All these were seized at or near the engine room. He then sent the two dead bodies for post-mortem examination to the hospital at Sangareddy. P.W. 12 then examined some witnesses. On 28th September, 1963 he arrested A-1, A-2 and P.W. 1 at 4 p.m. and took them to Siddipet. There he got them remanded to judicial custody on the 29th by an order of the Munsif-Magistrate, Medak, who was then in charge of the Munsif-Magistrate’s Court, Siddipet. On the 30th P.W. 12 filed a memorandum before the Munsif-Magistrate, Medak, requesting him to record the confessional statements of the three arrested persons. We will now refer in some detail to the manner in which Mr. Mir Ahmed Ali Khan, the Munsif-Magistrate of Medak, recorded the confessional statements of A-1, A-2 and P.W. 1. He was examined as P.W. 6. We will now refer in some detail to the manner in which Mr. Mir Ahmed Ali Khan, the Munsif-Magistrate of Medak, recorded the confessional statements of A-1, A-2 and P.W. 1. He was examined as P.W. 6. The three persons were produced before him for the first time on 29th September, 1963 at 9-15 p.m. As the Sub-Jail of Medak was closed by then, P.W. 6 ordered the three persons to be kept in the police lock-up with a direction that they should be produced before him the next day. They were accordingly produced on the 30th at 11-30 a.m. They were produced before him one after the other. The Magistrate first gave the prescribed warnings telling them that they were not bound to give confessional statements and if they did so, such statements might be used against them as evidence. Being satisfied that they were prepared to give confessional statements voluntarily, P.W. 6 gave them time for reflection till 1st October, 1963. On that day at about 1-15 p.m., A-1 was first produced in open Court. The Magistrate put the necessary preliminary questions to him and from the answers given by him, the Magistrate Mas satisfied that A-1 was going to give a statement of his own free will. He then proceeded to record the statement of A-1 which is marked as Exhibit P-2 in the case. This is what A-1 said: Myself and both the deceased persons Azimuddin and Bogum Raghavulu were the private servants of Balakishta Reddy. The deceased persons used to supervise our work and used to abuse us and do not give us our pay properly. On Tuesday they asked me to get sendhi and myself and Bagi Ramaiah brought two clay pots of sendhi and kept in the hut where we used to keep the instruments of cultivation. Twenty days ago myself, Tupudu Ramiah, Bagi Ramiah decided that we will kill the deceased. So I went into the electric motor room where the medicine for killing germs was kept in the box. I took medicine from that box of about one teaspoonful and put it in the empty coconut shell and gave it to Tupudu Ramiah (A-2) and he gave it to Bagi Ramaiah (P.W. 1). So I went into the electric motor room where the medicine for killing germs was kept in the box. I took medicine from that box of about one teaspoonful and put it in the empty coconut shell and gave it to Tupudu Ramiah (A-2) and he gave it to Bagi Ramaiah (P.W. 1). Bagi Ramaiah gave it to me and I mixed some medicine in one sendhi pot and some medicine in other sendhi pot, which were kept in the hut of Balakishta Reddy. After I went to my house for taking night food and returned to the well after two hours, I found Azimuddin (D-1) having drunk that sendhi was lying dead in front of the hut and Bogum Raghavulu (A-2) after drinking the sendhi in which I had mixed the medicine, died at his house. They died on Tuesday and police arrested me on Saturday Nothing more to say. " After recording the statement, the Magistrate appended a certificate that he had taken all the necessary precautions and given the requisite warnings and that he believed the confession was made by A-1 voluntarily. It was further noted there as follows: "It was taken in my presence and hearing and read over to him after translation in Telugu and he admitted to be correct. It contains a full and true account made by him. The Telugu translation was done by Sri Abdul Rahim, peon of this Court on oath." P.W. 6, the Munsif-Magistrate, was put some questions in cross-examination regarding the language in which A-1 as well as A-2 and P.W. 1 had given their statements and as to how they were translated and recorded in English. In chief examination itself, P.W. 6 stated thus: "All these three persons (meaning A-1, A-2 and P.W. 1) had given their statements in Telugu which were translated into Urudu by Abdul Rahim, peon of my Court and I wrote in English. I can understand Telugu. " In cross-examination the witness said: " There is a clerk in my office who knows Telugu. I do not know if the peon is qualified in Telugu but I was satisfied that he understands Telugu well. " We shall comment in due course upon this unusual manner of recording confessional statements. I can understand Telugu. " In cross-examination the witness said: " There is a clerk in my office who knows Telugu. I do not know if the peon is qualified in Telugu but I was satisfied that he understands Telugu well. " We shall comment in due course upon this unusual manner of recording confessional statements. To proceed with the narration of facts relating to the recording of the:onfes-sions of the other two persons, P.W. 6 deposed that after he had finished recording Exhibit P-2, A-2 was produced before him in open Court at 2-45 p.m., on 1st October 1963. He put some preliminary questions to A-2. One of the questions put to and the answer elicited from A-2 were: "Question.- Are you still having police fear in your mind? Answer.-I am still having police fear in my mind as they might beat me." The next question was: "As you are still having police fear in your mind, so you take further time from 1st October’ 1963 at 3 p.m. to 3rd October, 1963 at 11 a.m. Meanwhile you consider whether you are willing to give confession voluntarily?" A-2’s answer was: "I take further time and consider." Then the Magistrate appended the following note: "As the accused stated that he has police fear in his mind, so he is given further time from today 1st October, 1963 at 3 p.m. to 3rd April, 1963 at 11 a.m. to remove out police fear and to consider whether he is willing to give his confession voluntarily. " Earlier, the Magistrate, had adopted the same procedure with regard to P.W. 1, P.W. 6 deposed that on 1st October, 1963 P.W. 1 (Baki Ramiah) was produced before him in open Court at 2-30 P.M. Among the questions put to P.W. 1 were the following: "Question.-You were warned that your confession statement is not intended to make you an approver?" The answer was: "I understand that if I speak in favour of police, I will be released from custody." Another question put to P.W. 1 was: "Question.-Are you under fear of police? Answer.-I am still having police fear in my mind. The police people threatened me that I will be beaten as I have committed the offences." The next question was: "Question.-You take further time from 1st October, 1963 at 2-45 p.m. to 3rd April, 1963 at 11 a.m. for consideration. Answer.-I am still having police fear in my mind. The police people threatened me that I will be beaten as I have committed the offences." The next question was: "Question.-You take further time from 1st October, 1963 at 2-45 p.m. to 3rd April, 1963 at 11 a.m. for consideration. Answer.-I will consider." Then the Magistrate appended the following note: "As the accused stated that he has got police fear in his mind, so he is given further time from today 2-45 p.m. to 3rd October, 1963 11 a.m. to wean out police influence from his mind and to consider whether he is voluntarily willing to give his confessional statement." Then on 3rd October, 1963 at about 1 p.m. P.W. 1 was first produced before P.W. 6. After some preliminary questioning, the Magistrate asked him, "Are you still having police fear in your mind?". The answer was "I am not having police fear in my mind. It has gone away." To a further question P.W. 1 said that he was willing to give a statement voluntarily. Thereupon the Magistrate proceeded to record P.W. 1’s statement which is marked as Exhibit P-4 and is in the following terms: "Myself and the other two accused persons and deceased Azimuddin and Bogum Raghavulu were servants of Balakishta Reddy. The deceased Azimuddin and Bogum Raghavulu usedto supervise our work, they used to beat me and abuse me. Twenty days ago myself and Tupudu Ramaiah (A-2), Gundelli Baliah (A-1) conspired with each other and decided that we will kill Azimuddin patel and Bogum Raghavulu. On last Tuesday at about sunset time the deceased Azimuddin and Bogum Raghavulu asked me and Gundelli Baliah (A-1) to get sendhi for them. So we brought the two pots of sendhi and put it in the hut where the agricultural implements were kept; again we three accused consulted each other to kill deceased. At about sunset time on the same day Gundelli Baliah (A-1) went into the room of electric motor which is near the hut of agricultural implements and brought medicine for killing germs in a cover of coconut and gave it to Tupudu Ramiah (A-2) and he gave it to me. Then Gundelli Baliah (A-1) came from electric motor room to hut where sendhi was kept and took the medicine from my hand and mixed it in both the sendhi pots. I saw this. Then Gundelli Baliah (A-1) came from electric motor room to hut where sendhi was kept and took the medicine from my hand and mixed it in both the sendhi pots. I saw this. From there I went to my house to take meals and returned after two hours and found Azimuddin after drinking medicine mixed sendhi was lying dead in the electric motor room on cot. I know nothing about Bogum Raghavulu whether he had drunk sendhi or not. Nothing more to say." After having recorded this statement, the Magistrate appended a certificate that he had explained to the accused that he was under no obligation to give his confessional statement and had also warned him that it was not intended to make him an approver and that anything he stated would be recorded and might be used as evidence against him, and further that he (the Magistrate) believed that the time given for consideration to wean out police fear from the mind of the accused was sufficient. It was further stated in the certificate: "It was recorded in my presence and having read over to him after being translated on oath by a peon of this Court and he admitted to be correct and contains a full account made by the accused." Similarly, A-2 was produced on 3rd October, 1963 at 1-30 p.m. in open Court and the Magistrate put some preliminary questions and the first question put to A-2 was: "Question.-Are you still having police fear in your mind? Answer.-I am not having police fear now." Then, after eliciting an answer from A-2 that it was not intended to make him an approver, the Magistrate proceeded to record his statement. The following was the statement given by A-2 and marked as Exhibit P-3: "As Azimuddin patel and Bogum Raghavulu used to beat me and used to abuse me and Gundelli Baliah (A-1) and Bagi Ramiah (P.W. 1), so myself and Gundelli Baliah and Bagi Ramiah decided to kill deceased by putting medicine which is put in the farms for killing germs in the sendhi of deceased. So on Tuesday evening Gundelli Baliah and Bagi Ramiah brought sendhi for deceased persons and kept in the hut of agricultural implements for drinking by deceased persons as usual. Baliah (A-1) went inside the engine room and gave me some killer medicine in the cover of coconut. So on Tuesday evening Gundelli Baliah and Bagi Ramiah brought sendhi for deceased persons and kept in the hut of agricultural implements for drinking by deceased persons as usual. Baliah (A-1) went inside the engine room and gave me some killer medicine in the cover of coconut. I gave it to Bagi Ramiah (P.W.1). Then I saw Bagi Ramiah give the medicine to Gundelli Baliah (A-1) and I saw Gundelli Baliah (A-1) mix that medicine in the sendhi in two pots. After that I went to my house for taking meals and came there after two hours and saw deceased Azimuddin lying dead in front of engine room after drinking medicine mixed sendhi. Three hours after the death of Azimuddin deceased Bogum Raghavulu also died at his house after drinking that sendhi mixed with medicine. Nothing more to say." At the foot of the statement, the Magistrate appended a certificate that he had, explained to the accused that he was not bound to make a confessional statement, that he had warned him that it was not intended to make him an approver and that he (the Magistrate) believed that the accused had sufficient time to consider whether he was willing to give his statement voluntarily. It was further mentioned that " it was recorded in my presence and hearing and read over to him after translation in Telugu on oath by peon of this Court, Sri Abdul Rahim, and he admitted to be correct and it contains a full and true account made by the accused." Thereafter steps were taken to grant pardon to Baki Ramiah and take him as an approver. The necessary sanction was obtained from the District Magistrate, and on 4th December, 1963 pardon was tendered to him by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Siddipet. After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed on 6th December, 1966, against the two accused, while Baki Ramiah was taken as an approver and was examined as P.W. 1 at the trial. P.W. 7 the Medical Officer in charge of the Siddipet hospital, conducted the autopsy on the two dead bodies on 25th September, 1963 and issued the post-mortem certificates, Exhibits P-5 and P-6. He, however, reserved his opinion till after the receipt of the Chemical Examiner’s report, and the viscera preserved from the dead bodies was sent to the Chemical Examiner for analysis. He, however, reserved his opinion till after the receipt of the Chemical Examiner’s report, and the viscera preserved from the dead bodies was sent to the Chemical Examiner for analysis. On the basis of the Chemical Examiner’s reports, Exhibits P-15 and P-16, P.W. 7 gave his final opinion that the two persons D-1 and D-2 had died of poisoning by endrin. In the course of his evidence, P.W. 7 explained that endrin is a neuro toxic poison affecting the nervous system and death is usually due to paralysis of the vital centres in the brain. According to P.W. 7, even a very minimum quantity is sufficient to cause death, as it is a very deadly poison. Vomitting is not always necessary if one takes something mixed with endrin, but it may occur. It is not an instantaneous death-causing poison and a man can walk after taking it with ‘sendhi’ or other liquid. In cross-examination the witness further said that twitchings, convulsions, signs of respiratory and cardiac failure will be present before death and that the symptoms of endrin poisoning usually become apparent within half to one hour of administration of the poison. He said that endrin is available both in solid and liquid forms;tnd that five to fifteen drops of endrin is a fatal dose normally. Besides the official witnesses, the prosecution examined P.W. 1 (Baki Ramiah) as an approver and P.Ws. 5 and 8, Kodur Malliah and Lingareddipally Ramulu respectively, two of the seven farm-servants of P.W. 4, to corroborate the evidence given by the approver (P.W. 1). P.W. 1, whose age was noted as 16 in the confessional statement, was shown as 18 years in his deposition in the Session! Court. Whether he was aged 16 or 18, it is obvious that he was in his teens. Before we refer to his evidence, it is necessary to recall that when he (P.W. 1) and A-2 were produced before the Munsif-Magistrate P.W. 6 on 1st October, 1963, both of them told the Magistrate that they still had fear of the police, which obviously meant that whatever they might say, was not voluntary and free from police influence. This fear was expressed by P.W. 1 as well as by A-2. It may be mentioned that these two, besides being very young, are ignorant and illiterate persons belonging to a very backward class. This fear was expressed by P.W. 1 as well as by A-2. It may be mentioned that these two, besides being very young, are ignorant and illiterate persons belonging to a very backward class. It should have been evident to the Magistrate that when they gave expression to their fear of the police, even after they had been given ample time for reflection, there was no duty cast upon him to give further time "to wean them away from the police fear" as he puts it. The obvious course he should have taken was, to have told the police that he was not going to record the confessions of these two persons. Instead of doing so, apparently out of ignorance as to the true function of a Magistrate in recording confessions, he gave P.W. 1 and A-2 further two days’ time to reflect and if possible, get rid of police fear. What happened in these two days, is anybody’s guess. No doubt on 3rd October, 1963 when they were produced they said they had shed their fear, but as we are firmly of opinion that the Magistrate should not have remanded these two persons to further custody with a view if possible, to record confessions from them, we are not prepared to attach any importance to the confessional statements made by P.W. 1 and A-2 on 3rd October, 1963. Even the slightest suspicion that a confession made by an accused is not voluntary, is sufficient to discard it, as it is a worthless piece of evidence if it is not free from the taint of involuntariness, while at the same time it is a very strong piece of evidence if it is voluntary and made out of remorse and repentance. It would follow as a necessary corollary that in the present case the prosecution was not justified in taking Baki Ramiah as an approver, and examining him as the principal witness for the prosecution. Even so, the evidence of P.W. 1, besides being highly artificial and inherently incredible, does not implicate him even to the slightest extent either, in the conspiracy to kill D-1 and D-2 or in the actual administration of endrin’ to them. There is no reference in the whole of the chief examination of P.W. 1 to any prior conspiracy hatched by him along with the two accused to do away with the two deceased. There is no reference in the whole of the chief examination of P.W. 1 to any prior conspiracy hatched by him along with the two accused to do away with the two deceased. This is how his chief-examination runs: "On that day A-1 had brought the pot of ‘sendhi’ for Azimuddin (D-1) from Kunti Baliah’s (P.W. 3) shop and put it in the four walls area of tying cattle. That day I brought a pot of sendhi for Bogum Raghavulu (D-2) from Borra Baliah’s (P.W. 2) shop and kept it by the side of Azimuddin’s pot. There is electric pump on the well of Balkishta Reddy in that field and its engine is kept in a room by the side of the well, 18 to 20 feet from those walls enclosure. That day we had harvested the crops and stocked it in heaps. We brought sendhi at 5 p.m. A-1 went into the engine room and gave the medicine in a coconut shell to A-2 through the hole in the wall meant for passing of the pipe. A-2 brought and gave the coconut shell to me. A-1 came out of that room, took the medicine from me and poured it in the two lutties of sendhi. Then I and the two accused went home for food. Both the deceased used to trouble us and abuse us three persons unnecessarily, so they were poisoned. That medicine was for spraying in the field to kill insects. I was examined before M.M. Court, Medak, and told the truth there. Many days later I was taken to a ‘kutchery’ having neem trees opposite the police station and I was told there that if I speak the truth I will be off and no case will be brought against me and so was told by the officer there. Later I was examined in the Munsif Court, Siddipet, and I told the true facts there. I had returned two hours after taking food and found Azimuddin (D-1) dead in the engine room where he used to sleep daily. Raghavulu (A-2) had gone to his house and I learnt from people next day that he had died. A-1 had thrown the coconut shell away near the well and I showed it to the police people. I had returned two hours after taking food and found Azimuddin (D-1) dead in the engine room where he used to sleep daily. Raghavulu (A-2) had gone to his house and I learnt from people next day that he had died. A-1 had thrown the coconut shell away near the well and I showed it to the police people. " In cross-examination it was elicited from him that the enclosure in which the two ‘sendhi’ pots were kept, adjoins the cattle-shed and the walls of the cattle-shed are very high; that A-1 had gone inside the walls and mixed the medicine and that he had seen it from outside standing on tip-toe. Then he made the following significant admission: "The police had arrested six persons, farm-servants. The police beat us with ‘chappals’ and then we confessed." Having said that, the witness corrected himself by saying: " They did not beat me or abuse me." He went on to say that he was caught on a Tuesday and kept at the police station and brought to the Court on Saturday. He further stated: "The police let off other servants and kept me and A-1 and A-2." It will be seen from P.W. 1’s evidence that the part played by P.W. 1, even on his own showing, was very little and was a wholly unnecessary part. According to him, A-1 had gone into the engine room and put medicine, meaning endrin, in a coconut shell and passed it on to A-2 through a hole in the wall. Then A-2 passed on the coconut shell to the witness (P.W. 1). Thereafter A-1 came out of the room, took the coconut shell from P.W. 1 and poured its contents into the two ‘lutties’ of ‘sendhi’. All this relay race was wholly unnecessary unless it be that P.W. 1 wanted to assign himself some little part in the handling of the coconut shell containing endrin. If A-1 had first given it to A-2, there was neither reason nor sense in A-2 passing it on to P.W. 1 and again A-1 coming and taking it from P.W. 1. Besides, the motive for P.W. 1 and the accused for doing away with the deceased as given out by P.W. 1, was that both the deceased used to trouble them and abuse them unnecessarily. Besides, the motive for P.W. 1 and the accused for doing away with the deceased as given out by P.W. 1, was that both the deceased used to trouble them and abuse them unnecessarily. We may say at once that the learned trial Judge was not prepared to accept the prosecution case that that could have provided a motive for the commission of the crime. This is what the learned Judge says on this part of the case: "This evidence (of motive) only indicates the possibility of the existence of some grouse of the accused and P.W. 1 against the two deceased persons and is not sufficient to establish motive in their minds to do away with the deceased. There is nothing to show that at any time these three farm-servants had ever protested against the conduct of the deceased persons so as to indicate any conspiracy between them to encompass the murder of the deceased persons. However, the evidence of motive in such cases assumes secondary importance and is only of corroborative value to the direct and circumstantial evidence." Not only was the suggested motive, so far as P.W. 1 was concerned, very thin, but it is also evident from his own testimony that all the farm-servants, seven of them including P.W. 1, had been suspected by the police in the first instance, kept in custody and were beaten with ‘chappals’, and it was only then, that he (P.W. 1) and the two accused had confessed. No doubt having blurted out that much, he tried to back out of it in the next breath by saying that they did not beat him nor abuse him. But again in the last sentence of his deposition he (P.W. 1) said: "They let off other servants and kept me and A-1 and A-2." It is clear to us from a reading of the deposition of this witness that the police had subjected P.W. 1, A-1 and A-2 as also the other farm-servants including P.Ws. 5 and 8 to coercion and pressure and the confessional statements made by them before the Magistrate, were the result of such coercion. None of the warnings given by the Magistrate could have wiped away the dreadful fear which had been instilled into the minds of these ignorant persons. That is patent from what P.W. 1 and A-2 told the Magistrate even on 1st October, 1963. None of the warnings given by the Magistrate could have wiped away the dreadful fear which had been instilled into the minds of these ignorant persons. That is patent from what P.W. 1 and A-2 told the Magistrate even on 1st October, 1963. It follows, therefore, that:he evidence of P.W. 1 besides being highly artificial as to the part played by himself, is wholly unacceptable as to the parts A-1 and A-2 are alleged to have played in this transaction. The highly imaginative version given by P.W. 1 in his cross-examination that although the walls of the enclosure were high he was able to see what A-1 was doing, by standing on his toes, is a gross exaggeration. We are unable to attach any weight to the evidence of P.W. 1. We have already pointed out that his confession should never have been recorded by the Magistrate and he should never have been taken as an approver. So the entire testimony of P.W. 1 should be left out of account in adjudging the guilt of the accused in this case. Now we turn to the evidence of the two other farm-servants, P.Ws. 5 and 8, whom the learned Sessions Judge has regarded as independent witnesses. In view of the categorical admission made by P.W. 1 in his cross-examination that all the farm-servants had been subjected to restraint and coercion by the police and that ultimately P.W. 1, A-1 and A-2 alone were arrested and the others were released and judging also from what the accused stated in the Committing Magistrate’s Court, it is clear to our mind that P.Ws. 5 and 8, as also the other farm-servants of P.W. 4, must have had a hand in the killing of the two deceased persons, whom all the farm-servants regarded as a nuisance, as they were constantly complaining against the farm-servants to their master. Besides, P.Ws. 5 and 8 do not claim to have seen A-1 actually mixing poison in the ‘sendhi‘pots. They merely speak to A-1 and P.W. 1 getting the pots of ‘sendhi‘for the two deceased persons and then A-1 going into the engine room and coming out. On a perusal of the depositions of these two witnesses, P.Ws. 5 and 8, we are fully convinced that they knew much more about the transaction resulting in the poisoning of the two deceased persons than what they are prepared to own. On a perusal of the depositions of these two witnesses, P.Ws. 5 and 8, we are fully convinced that they knew much more about the transaction resulting in the poisoning of the two deceased persons than what they are prepared to own. To say the least, they are in the position of accomplices and naturally they would be prepared to say anything to save their skins. We are not prepared to regard them as independent witnesses, as the learned Sessions Judge did. Then we turn to the two confessional statements recorded from A-1 and A-2 Exhibits P-2 and P-3 respectively. We have already pointed out that according to the evidence given by the Magistrate (P.W. 6) himself, he knew only a little Telugu, and the accused persons spoke in Telugu and gave their statements in Telugu; and although there was a clerk in the Court who knew Telugu, the task of translating Telugu into Urudu for the benefit of the Magistrate, was entrusted to the peon Abdul Rahim. How much Telugu this peon knows, one cannot tell because he was not examined as a witness. His proficiency in Telugu depends upon the certificate given by the Magistrate, who himself knews very little Telugu. The Magistrate stated that he understands Telugu; but if he understood Telugu, what need was there to interpose a peon between the accused and himself? Apparently his knowledge of Telugu is rudimentary. Then, as regards the peon who translated the Telugu spoken to by the accused into Urdu, the Magistrate says that he does not know if the peon is qualified in Telugu. But he, the Magistrate, was satisfied that the peon understands Telugu well. How the Magistrate could have known that the peon understands Telugu well when he, himself knows very little Telugu is difficult to fathom. The Magistrate said that there is a clerk in the office who knows Telugu. Why the services of the clerk were not utilised in respect of 1 serious matter like this, is not clear. It appears to us that the Magistrate treated a serious matter like the recording of confessions which might affect the life and liberty of the accused, in a casual-indeed in a callous manner. It was really a case of the blind leading the blind. It appears to us that the Magistrate treated a serious matter like the recording of confessions which might affect the life and liberty of the accused, in a casual-indeed in a callous manner. It was really a case of the blind leading the blind. How much Telugu the peon knew, how far the understood what the accused stated and how far that was translated into Urdu to make the Magistrate understand, are all matters for speculation. The adoption of such casual procedure in the recording of confessions is to be deprecated, and we hope Mr. Mir Ahmed Ali Khan, the concerned Magistrate, will hereafter exercise greater care in recording confessions under section 164, Criminal Procedure Code. The recording of confessions is a serious and solemn duty which is to be performed in strict conformity with the letter and spirit of the law. It is not to be regarded as a mere formal or routine ritual. Added to this unsatisfactory mode of translating the statements made by A-1 and A-2 from Telugu into Urdu and then into English, we entertain grave doubts as to whether these confessions were really voluntary in the sense that they were free from police pressure or tutoring. Section 24 of the Evidence Act lays down as under: “A confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding, if the making of the confession, appears to the Court to have been caused by any inducement, threat or promise having reference to the charge against the accused person proceeding from a person in authority and sufficient, in the opinion of the Court, to give the accused person grounds which would appear to him reasonable for supposing that by making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceedings against him.” We feel that the confessions made by A-1 and A-2 were the outcome of fear engendered by their being subjected to ill-treatment by the police. No doubt the Sub-Inspector of Police (P.W. 12) denied that he had threatened, beaten, induced or compelled A-1 and A-2 to give confessional statements. No doubt the Sub-Inspector of Police (P.W. 12) denied that he had threatened, beaten, induced or compelled A-1 and A-2 to give confessional statements. In view of the clear admission made by P.W. 1 that all the farm-servants had been arrested and beaten with ‘chappals’ by the police till they said they were prepared to give confessions, we find it difficult to accept the protestation of the Sub-Inspector at its face value. We hold that the confessions made by A-1 and A-2 were not voluntary and are therefore irrelevant, and we exclude them from consideration altogether. Then we have the statements made by the accused under section 207, Criminal Procedure Code, in the Committing Magistrate’s Court. The question put to A-1 was in the following form: “Question.-P.W. 1 Bakki Ramiah’s evidence shows that you took endrin from the electric motor room of Balkishta Reddy in his field called Manchi Neella bavi at Duddeda on 24th September, 1963, and mixed it in the toddy pots kept near the well, in pursuance of conspiracy hatched up by you and other two accused to do away with Azeemuddin (D-1) and Bogam Raghavulu (D-2), the seridars of Balkishta Reddy under whom you were working. Azeemuddin and Raghavulu took the toddy mixed with endrin and died instantly. What have you to say? Answer.- Imixed endrin in toddy pots at the instance of other servants of Balkishta Reddy as Azeemuddin abused Perka Pochiga and as I am in good looks of Azeemuddin. Myself, A-2 Duppeda Rama, Bakki Rama (P.W. 1) and three others Kadambakadu, Lingareddipalli Rama (P.W. 8) and Perka Pochiah conspired together to do away with Azeemuddin only.” A-1 denied having given a statement like this before-the Committing Magistrate. That explanation is palpably untrue. But the fact remains that in this statement what A-1 said was that he himself had no grouse or grudge against D-1. On the contrary he was in his good books and so he had been used as a decoy by other farm-servants who had a grudge against D-1 and at their instance, he had mixed endrin in the ‘sendhi’ pots. In other words, he was merely a tool in the hands of the other farm-servants and had no personal animosity against D-1. Further, no one had conspired or intended to cause the death of D-2. That, however is not the present prosecution case. In other words, he was merely a tool in the hands of the other farm-servants and had no personal animosity against D-1. Further, no one had conspired or intended to cause the death of D-2. That, however is not the present prosecution case. The prosecution case is that A-1, A-2 and P.W. 1, bearing a grudge against both the two deceased persons because the latter were constantly complaining against them to their master, conspired to do away with the two deceased persons, and A-1 had actually put endrin into the two pots of ‘sendhi’ which had been ultimately consumed by D-1 and D-2. It follows that the statement given by A-1 in the Committal Court does not represent the truth, according to the present prosecution case. If that be so and as it has been retracted in the Sessions Court, it certainly cannot be made the foundation of a conviction. Besides, if the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 5 and 8 is discarded, there is hardly any corroboration of the halting admission made by A-1 in the Committal Court as to the part played by him in the transaction. Likewise A-2’s statement in the Committal Court was as follows: “Myself, A-1 and P.W. 1 along with Kodur Malliah (P.W. 5) Perka Pochigadu, Lingareddipalli Ramudu (P.W. 8) conspired to do away with Azeemuddin (D. 1) and took poison and mixed in toddy pots. I did not sea in how many toddy pots the poison was mixed. We did not conspire to kill Bogam Raghavulu (D-2).” In the Sessions Court, A-2 stated that he had not been questioned by the Magistrate at all and he had not stated like that. That explanation cannot be accepted. However, the statement given by A-2 is not true even according to the prosecution case. If that be so, since there is no corroboration whatever of that statement so far as it implicates A-2, that statement cannot form the basis of conviction. On a careful consideration of all the items of evidence relied on by the prosecution, we are constrained to hold that there is no legal evidence upon which the convictions of the two accused can be sustained. We, therefore, allow both these appeals, quash the convictions and sentences passed on both the accused and direct that they be set at liberty forthwith. A.B.K. ----- Appeals allowed.