Gopal Rao Ekbote, J.- This is an appeal by the State against the order of acquittal of the accused under section 302, Indian Penal Code. The facts which give rise to this appeal may briefly be stated. Kathi Gangulu, the deceased, developed illicit intimacy first with the wife of the accused. The accused suspecting the infidelity of his wife discarded her. The deceased then developed intimacy with the sister of the accused, P.W. 5. The accused therefore was bitter about the deceased. On 6th February, 1964, it was alleged that the deceased went to see P.W. 5, but she was not there. When the deceased was returning, the accused saw him and stabbed him. P.Ws. 1 and 2 who saw the incident, raised a hue and cry. P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5 came on the spot. After receiving the injury, the deceased moved towards the house of P.W. 2 and sat on the pial of that house. The accused went there and stabbed him again. P.W. 2 being afraid that she might be involved requested P.Ws. 3 to 5 to assist her in removing the body to the house of the accused’s father. It seems thereupon the body was shifted near the house of the accused’s father. But the accused dragged the body and left it on a road. P.Ws. 4 and 8 and some other people went to P.W. 9 the Village Munsiff. P.W. 4 lodged a complaint which was reduced to writing (Exhibit P-1). P.W. 9 thereupon sent a despatch to the Police citation, Dwarapudi. The Sub-Inspector arrived on the scene and commenced investigation. (The Sub-Inspector however subsequently died). The Sub-Inspector, who had reached the scene at about midnight, conducted inquest between 7 a.m. and 9 a.m. next day morning. P.W. 15, the Circle Inspector who had received the express First Information Report, reached the place at 1-30 the next day, i.e., on 7th February, 1964. He took over the investigation from the Sub-Inspector. The accused all the time was there. On 7th February, 1964 at about 7 p.m. the accused was arrested. On completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed on 21st February, 1964 . Earlier the accused was produced before P.W. 11, the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Rajahmundry who after administering the necessary warnings and giving sufficient time for reflection recorded the statement of the accused on 13th February, 1964. On completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed on 21st February, 1964 . Earlier the accused was produced before P.W. 11, the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Rajahmundry who after administering the necessary warnings and giving sufficient time for reflection recorded the statement of the accused on 13th February, 1964. The accused pleaded rot guilty and denied the charges. The learned Sessions Judge examined as many as 15 witnesses and marked several documents. Upon this material, he reached the conclusion that although the motive for the crime was satisfactorily established, the confession was retracted and there was no adequate corroboration on material particulars. The learned Judge therefore acquitted the accused of the charge of murder. It is from this judgment of the learned Sessions Judge given on 5th May, 1964 that the present appeal is preferred. The entire case depends upon the confession of the accused and the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2. Exhibit P-11 is the confession. In the said statement, the accused stated that his marriage had taken place ten years before and that he did not live with his wife Mangamma even for a year. In the meanwhile, a Harijan of his village one Kathi Gangulu (deceased) arranged his (accused’s wife) for sexual intercourse with a friend of his. The accused therefore discarded his wife as she became debaucherous. Then the accused and Gangulu had a wordy quarrel. Thenceforward, he and Gangulu were on terms of enmity and were not talking. Kathi Gangulu was a rowdy. He was a drunkard. A year had passed since the accused was separated from his parents. He did not agree with them. They wanted him to re-marry and lead a family life. He (the accused) demanded partition and it is only on that there was some dispute and that is why the accused got separated and went to stay in another house. His sister’s house is near the house in which the accused has been living. The material portion of the statement in the words of the accused is as follows: “I returned home at lamp lighting time and was going to the Well in our Harijan wade for taking bath. Kathi Gangulu was coming opposite from the well side. While so coming, he dashed against my right shoulder. ‘You are dashing against my shoulder’, said I. Soon he gave a slap on my cheek violently. Kathi Gangulu was coming opposite from the well side. While so coming, he dashed against my right shoulder. ‘You are dashing against my shoulder’, said I. Soon he gave a slap on my cheek violently. I too retaliated him by striking at his shoulder. No sooner had I struck him then Gangulu beat me repeatedly. I was at my wits’ end when I was so beaten. Immediately I ran home and took out a spear piece and suddenly came back and pierced on the chest of Gangulu. He was about to grapple with me crying ‘Ammoi, baboi’. I then gave another stab with the spear piece on the chest of Gangulu. After So stabbing i got afraid and went away to the house where my parents reside. At that house my father and mother were not there. I sat alone. By then a few persons carried the corpse of Gangulu upto the house of my father and placed it there. I then dragged the corpse by holding its hands to the road for about 10 yards. I grew nervous. I went to the Railway track to commit suicide. If I were to die, my parents Would be arrested. So thinking I went to the canal wherein I threw the knife and I went to my house instead of to my father’s. While I was sleep at my house, the police came at midnight and took me away.” It is not now in doubt that before a retracted confession is accepted in evidence, it has to be proved that the confession was made voluntarily and that it is true. It must also be supported by independent and credible evidence. In so far as the question whether the confession was voluntarily made by the accused is concerned, after going through the record relating to the warnings administered by the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, we are satisfied that the confession seems to have been made voluntarily. In regard to its truth, however, we are doubtful. It is now well settled that in regard to the veracity of the confession, one has to necessarily see from the evidence of the prosecution and the surrounding circumstances. If in general or material respects, the confession finds sufficient corroboration from the evidence for the prosecution and the surrounding circumstances, it can safely be held that the confession is true and then it can be relied upon. If in general or material respects, the confession finds sufficient corroboration from the evidence for the prosecution and the surrounding circumstances, it can safely be held that the confession is true and then it can be relied upon. On the other hand, if substantially the evidence for the prosecution goes against the statements made by the accused, then it is obvious that the confession not being true cannot be acted upon. If in the light of what is stated above, the confession is compared with the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 and the surrounding circumstances, we find that in substantial respects the story told by P.W. 1 is different than what is given in the confession. The confession says that there was some quarrel between the accused and the deceased and it is only then that he went to his house, fetched the spear piece and stabbed the deceased on the chest. The deceased was about to grapple with the accused. Then the accused gave another stab with the spear piece on the chest. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 on the other hand does not make any reference to the wordy quarrel or that the accused went to his house in order to get the spear piece. We are not inclined to hold that P.Ws. 1 and 2 came only after the wordy quarrel had ceased and the accused had brought the spear piece from his house. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 on the other hand and particularly that of P.W. 2clearly states that they were there right from the beginning and they could not have missed the wordy quarrel, particularly the accused going into his house and fetching the spear piece. That apart, the confession does not mention that Gangulu was stabbed at the point marked T-1 in the plan first and then when he moved to the pial of P.W. 2, he was stabbed again by the accused; whereas, the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 is that the accused stabbed the deceased first at the point marked T-1 in the plan and then on the pial at the point marked T-2. In this respect, the sketch shows that the entrance to the house of P.W. 2 open on the other side of the place where the first incident is alleged to have taken place. In this respect, the sketch shows that the entrance to the house of P.W. 2 open on the other side of the place where the first incident is alleged to have taken place. In order to go to the pial, which admittedly is in front of the house of P.W. 2, one has to necessarily pass through a small lane of three feet width and it is clear from the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge that there are eaves which obstruct a free passage in that lane. In any case, the confession does not mention that the deceased after receiving the first stab had run to the pial of P.W. 2 through that lane but that is the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2. If the deceased had not gone to P.W. 2’s pial, there was no occasion for P.W. 2 to see the stabbing of the deceased by the accused. Then while the confession speaks of a spear piece, the entire evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 speaks only of knife. The knife was not recovered. It is true that the accused in his confession says that he threw the knife in the canal but it is not clear whether when he refers to the knife which he threw in the canal he meant that he threw the spear piece only. The confession is also silent in regard to the deceased’s intimacy with his wife or with his sister. What all it says is that finding that the wife had become debaucherous he discarded her. There is no reference to any illicit intimacy of the deceased with his wife or his sister. P.Ws. 1 and 2 on the other hand say that the deceased was having illicit intimacy both with the wife of the accused as well as his sister. It will thus be seen that in all material respects the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 is inconsistent or at least silent in regard to whatever is said in the confession by the accused. The learned Sessions Judge in our view was right when he stated that in these circumstances the confession, which is retracted, cannot be accepted and acted upon. Moreover, it cannot be said that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 is independent and credible corroborative evidence. P.W. 1 had to admit that the deceased had illicit intimacy with some of her relations. Moreover, it cannot be said that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 is independent and credible corroborative evidence. P.W. 1 had to admit that the deceased had illicit intimacy with some of her relations. She thus had a grouse against the deceased. She also admitted that the deceased had illicit intimacy with P.W. 2 Although P.W. 2 denied that in her statement, but it is difficult to rely upon that part of her statement in the light ofthe evidence on record. Both P.Ws. 1 and 2 did not speak about the wordy quarrel or the accused going into the house and bringing the knife from his house. We have already stated that both these witnesses referred to the knife and did not refer to the spear piece. Both these witnesses are related to each other. A suggestion was made to both of them that because of the illicit intimacy with P.W. 2 and the relations of P.W. 1, the husband of P.W. 2 and some others have killed the deceased and are trying to foist the charge on the accused. They have denied the suggestion. Nevertheless it seems to us clear that the deceased had a weakness for women and he had contacted illicit intimacy not only with P.W. 2 but the relations of P.W. 1 also apart from two other women. It is also not known as to why P.W. 2 was so particular to see that the dead body was removed from the pial of her house. She requested P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5 and removed the body to the house of Narayya. Not only that. She immediately took care to see that the blood which was there was washed away and thus the evidence was destroyed. She smeared cow dung on the pial. The evidence of P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5 does not help the prosecution much. It is however pertinent to note that it is to P.W. 4 that P.Ws. 1 and 2 told that it is the accused who killed the deceased and knowing that fully well P.W. 4 who was accompanied by P.W. 8 and other villagers went and reported to the Village Munsif on the basis of which Exhibit P-1 was drawn. It is however pertinent to note that it is to P.W. 4 that P.Ws. 1 and 2 told that it is the accused who killed the deceased and knowing that fully well P.W. 4 who was accompanied by P.W. 8 and other villagers went and reported to the Village Munsif on the basis of which Exhibit P-1 was drawn. Exhibit P-1 is very short and it merely mentions that a person named Kathi Gangulu, son of Venkayya, was found lying dead about 15 yards from the house of one Geddada Paramesu, that there was a knife stab wound on his person and that they were not aware of the person that killed him. They requested him to take suitable action in the matter. We fail to understand why P.W. 4, who was present and who had affixed his thumb mark on Exhibit P-1 when he knew that it was the accused who had killed the deceased, mentioned that they were not aware of the person that killed the deceased. Moreover there was no mention that the body was lying on the road nor there was any mention that the deceased was stabbed first at the point T-1 and then on the pial of P.W. 2. In fact there is no reference to ‘he witnesses, P.Ws. 1 and 2, in this report at all. P.W. 4 explaining in regard to this serious omission said that because he had not seen the incident himself, he did not think it proper to mention what all P.Ws. 1 and 2 had told him. The Village Munsif had put specific question. Nevertheless P.W. 4 was not inclined to give the total information. In these circumstances, it is hard to rely upon P.Ws. 1 and 2. It is also interesting to note that the accused even according to the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, was present and was objecting to the shifting of the corpse to another place. He did not leave the village. He was in his house and curiously although P.Ws. 1 and 2 have been freely mentioning his name, neither he was arrested that night nor even the next day. 1 and 2, was present and was objecting to the shifting of the corpse to another place. He did not leave the village. He was in his house and curiously although P.Ws. 1 and 2 have been freely mentioning his name, neither he was arrested that night nor even the next day. As stated earlier the inquest was conducted in the morning itself and the accused was arrested only on 7th February, 1964 at 7 p.m. The Village Munsif categorically admitted in his deposition that he did not think it advisable to keep any watch over the house of the accused It will thus be clear that till the next day evening, the accused was not involved in the case at all. This is supported particularly by Exhibit P-1 When the deceased had illicit intimacy with more than one woman in the village, it would not be unreasonable to infer that the deceased had many enemies including perhaps the accused. P.Ws. 1 and 2 therefore cannot be said to be disinterested or independent persons. In view of Exhibit P-1, their evidence becomes of little evidence of P.W. 8 does not help the prosecution in any manner. We have already stated that the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 5 is also of not much value. It will thus be plain that the confession in most of its parts is not true nor it is corroborated by any independent and credible evidence. After rejecting the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, there remains nothing which can be said to be of any corroborate value in the case. The statement under section 27, Criminal Procedure Code does not, in our opinion, help the prosecution in any manner as nothing was recovered in pursuance of that statement. It was also argued that the accused had blood stains on his hand and the sleeve of his shirt. Although this blood was sent for chemical examination, though it was found to be human blood, it could not be grouped with the blood of the deceased. We are therefore satisfied that it is not a case in which this Court can interfere. Consequently the appeal fails and is dismissed. G.S.M. ----- Appeal dismissed.