JUDGMENT Aftab H. Saikia, J. 1. Heard Mr. N.C. Das, learned senior Counsel assisted by Mr. P.C. Deka, learned Counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. K.A. Mazumdar, learned Public Prosecutor (P.P.), Assam. 2. Challenge in this criminal appeal is to the judgment and order dated 2.9.2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Darrang, Mangaldoi in Sessions Case No. 249(DM)/2001 convicting and sentencing all the three appellants under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced each of them to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1000 each in.default, further rigorous imprisonment for six months. 3. The facts situation in brief as unfolded by the prosecution during the trial are that on 15.5.1996 Haridas ('the deceased') went to Rani Phukuripar Bazar for purchasing some articles. But he did not return home even at night. He had habit of watching T.V., at others house. So, the family members did not take the matter seriously and thought that the deceased might have been in somebody's house watching T.V. Next morning he did not return home. In the afternoon some village women reported that a dead body was found lying in the water of the village field. The family members of the deceased went to that place and to their utter surprise they found that it was the dead body of Haridas Dev Nath, the minor son of PW2, Umesh Dev Nath. The dead body was brought home. While all the villagers were near the dead body, appellants Jantu Sarkar, Ranjit Roy alias Babul, Sanjay Paul alias Puton and Madhu Dey (declared to be absconder) were conspicuous by their absence at the place and were found playing carom near the house of the deceased. At this, the villagers grew suspicion to their behaviours. 4. Thereafter Sri Upendra Chandra Deb Nath (PW1), grandfather of the deceased lodged written FIR with the police of Tangla Police Station stating that on 15.5.1996 night some unknown miscreants killed his grand son Haridas Debnath by stabbing him with a sharp weapon and left the body in water of the field at Thakuriapara and the body of the deceased was found at 1.00 p.m. on 16.5.1996. Police registered a case and PW12, Ahmed Ali took up the investigation of the case. 5. Police registered a case and PW12, Ahmed Ali took up the investigation of the case. 5. The investigation was set in motion on the basis of the above mentioned FIR, and on completion of the investigation, the police submitted charge sheet against the appellants showing the co-accused Madhu Dey as absconder under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. During trial, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses in order to establish its accusation and defence examined one. PW5, Tarakeswar Lohar, the then Judicial Magistrate, 1st class recorded the confessional statement of one of the appellants, namely, Jantu Sarkar (A-1), PW11, Dr. Nirmal Ch. Sarmah, who performed autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and PW12, Ahmed Ali, Investigating Officer (I.O.) were examined by the prosecution as the official witnesses. 7. The trial court, having meticulously examined and appreciated the entire material evidence on record and after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, found the appellants guilty of commission of the crime of killing the deceased and accordingly all the 3(three) appellants were convicted and sentenced by the impugned judgment and order as not iced above. 8. In support of the appeal, Mr. Das, the learned senior Counsel for the appellants, taking the aid of prosecution witnesses, has stated that since, admittedly, there were no eye witnesses to substantiate the accusation against these appellants, the circumstantial evidence set up by the prosecution are not sufficient to rope in the appellants with the charges so levelled them. His clear stand is that (i) the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses i.e., PWs 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 lack credibility and truthfulness and (ii) the confessional statement, Exbt. 2 of A-1, cannot form the basis of conviction as the same was retracted by A-1 himself in his statement under Section 313, Cr.PC. 9. Before consideration of such limited arguments so advanced by the learned senior Counsel, it would be prudent to discuss the evidence of those witnesses referred to. 10. PW1, Upendra Dev Nath, the grand-father of the deceased and informant of the case deposed that his son Umesh, PW2, ran a tea stall at Rani Pukhuripar Bazar. He closed the shop at night and used to come home. 10. PW1, Upendra Dev Nath, the grand-father of the deceased and informant of the case deposed that his son Umesh, PW2, ran a tea stall at Rani Pukhuripar Bazar. He closed the shop at night and used to come home. About one month prior to this incident the three appellants totally damaged the tea stall of Umesh and threw away the Almirah and showcase etc. into the Rani Pukhuri (pond). The matter was referred to village 'mel' and said village 'mel' found the appellants guilty and were ordered to pay fine of Rs. 250 to 350. Two of the accused persons paid the fine and others did not. This prosecution witness also narrated the actual fact that on the date of occurrence Haridas went to the Pukhuripar Bazar for purchasing something. He did not return home at night. The minor boy sometimes used to stay at others house watching T.V. and so that they did not go in search of the boy at night. The boy was not found in the next morning also. Thereafter two ladies Anjali and Surobala informed the family members of the deceased that a dead body was found lying in the village field under water. PW1 rushed to that place and found his grand-son lying dead with dagger blows over his body. Then he lodged FIR as aforesaid. Thereafter, according to this witness, police on their enquiry found four people playing carom at accused Babul's house near the place of occurrence. Police then asked them as to why they did not go to see the dead body. Babul, the accused, started to tremble and tried to escape. Babul, Manoj and his family members brought the body to their courtyard. All the accused were taken to thana. Babul confessed in the thana that Kutan, Abu (Jantu) and Babul (Ranjit) had killed Haridas in collusion with Mantu. They killed him since they were charged with fine in a village 'mel' (extrajudicial trial) held in connection with their vandalism. Ranjit alias Babul confessed that they had killed Haridas near the Durga Mandir on the bank of the pond and then thrown him in the water. He also said they had killed him with a dagger. It was said that the dagger and the blood stained lungi were in the grocery shop of sanjoy. Those were seized when accused Putan Pal produced them. The witness was not virtually examined. He also said they had killed him with a dagger. It was said that the dagger and the blood stained lungi were in the grocery shop of sanjoy. Those were seized when accused Putan Pal produced them. The witness was not virtually examined. 11. Umesh Dev Nath, the father of the deceased, PW2, in his deposition deposed that he had a tea stall at the market of Rani Pukhuripar. That stall was demolished by the appellants. Then public fined accused Babul, Kutan Pal, Jantu Sarkar and Poritosh. For that, Babul threatened this witness by saying that he would see him if he cast his vote in the symbol of hand. On the day of occurrence at 10.00 a.m. the deceased went to Ranipukhuri Bazar for purchasing some articles be he did not return on that night. This witness did not go for search due to fear of Babul as aforesaid. On the following day two women informed that a dead body was lying in the water at the paddy field. Going their, he found his son's dead body who died sustaining dagger injury. 12. PW3 Jayanti Dev Nath was the mother of the deceased. She evidenced that her minor son aged about 9 years went to Rani Pukhuri Bazar on the date of occurrence. He did not return home at night. The next day at noon two ladies Anjali and Surobala reported that a dead body was there in the village field. She then ran to the village field and found the dead body of her son with stab wounds over his chest, neck, stomach and other parts of the body. The water in the area was red with blood. The witness stated that next Sunday she met the accused Jantu Sarkar at Rani Pukhuri Par and the accused Jantu confessed before her that Ranjit, Sanjoy and Madhu dragged her son from a shop to the 'Durga Mandir' on the bank of the pond. Accused Jantu was asked to stay there watching, in default, they threatened him also with dire consequences. Accused Madhu caught hold of the neck of the deceased. Jantu caught his hands and accused Ranjit gave the dagger blow over the body of the deceased. Then Sanjoy gave some dagger blows and then they dragged the dead body to the nearby field and laid it their. Accused Madhu caught hold of the neck of the deceased. Jantu caught his hands and accused Ranjit gave the dagger blow over the body of the deceased. Then Sanjoy gave some dagger blows and then they dragged the dead body to the nearby field and laid it their. This witness was also virtually not cross-examined except a mere suggestion that she did not state before police regarding extra judicial confession made by accused Jantu Sarkar. 13. Another witness, PW4, Gopal Seal, a VDP Secretary at the time of occurrence, heard of the incident of recovery of the dead body of Haridas and went there and saw the same. He stated in cross that while police came to his village, accused Jantu was absconding. Along with the villagers he caught him from his house and handed over to police. He stated in cross that accused Jantu denied committing any offence. 14. PW6, Nikhil Baishya, stated that in connection with the murder case of Haridas Dev Nath, police showed him a dagger in front of the tea stall of Sankar Das at Thakuriapara. He stated that the shop of accused Sanjoy Paul was near that place. He was reported by police that the dagger was recovered from the shop of Sanjoy Paul. It was of length of about fifteen inches. It was seized. Though seizure list and PW6 was signatory to the seizure list, he admitted that he was not present when the dagger was recovered form the shop of accused Sanjoy Paul. But, he saw it thereafter. 15. According to PW7, Ajit Chandra Biswas, he found police of Tangla Police Station sitting in front of the shop of accused Sanjoy Paul one day. It was about 2.30 p.m. The accused was in his shop. He stated that police then recovered one dagger from the shop of Sanjoy Paul and showed it to him. He stated that it was seized by police and he was signatory to the seizure list. He did riot ask any question to the accused Sanjoy Paul. He stated that the dagger was not stained with blood while he saw it. 16. PW8 Dulal Roy went to the shop of accused Sanjoy Paul the day after the recovery of the dead body of the deceased Haridas. He stated that then police of Tangla Police Station was there and police asked accused Sanjoy. "Where is the dagger? He stated that the dagger was not stained with blood while he saw it. 16. PW8 Dulal Roy went to the shop of accused Sanjoy Paul the day after the recovery of the dead body of the deceased Haridas. He stated that then police of Tangla Police Station was there and police asked accused Sanjoy. "Where is the dagger? Bring it out". This witness further stated that then the accused Sanjay and police entered into the shop of accused Sanjoy and brought out a dagger. It was seized by police. He failed to state whether the dagger was stained with blood or not. He stated that the dagger was straight and about a cubit long. 17. PW9 Tilak Chandra Boro saw the dead body of Haridas lying in the village field with multiple stab wounds. He testified that after about two days of the incident police went to the shop of accused Sanjoy and the accused produced a dagger before police. This witness was not cross-examined. 18. PW10 Biren Dev Nath also narrated that a day after the recovery of the dead body of Haridas, police went to the shop of Sanjoy Paul and one dagger was produced by accused Sanjoy Paul which was seized by police. This witness was also not cross-examined by the defence. 19. Now let us look into the confessional statement, Exbt. 2, made by A-1. It is on the record that A-1 confessed before police and he made a confessional statement before Judicial Magistrate Shri T. Lohar, PW5. At the time of incident, PW5, Shri Lohar was Judicial Magistrate, First class at Darrang, Mangaldoi. In his evidence, he stated that the accused was produced before him on 20.5.1996 and he explained the accused all the particulars and ingredients and implications of making a confession and asked A-1 to be produced on next date i.e., 21.5.1996, on which date there was call for "Assam Bandh". So the accused was produced before him on 22.5.1996 and PW5 again explained him the implications of making confession. The accused agreed to make such a confession and then after three hours, PW5, after putting searching questions to the accused, arrived at a finding that the accused was going to make a confession voluntarily and, accordingly, he recorded the confessional statement Ext. 2 of the accused. The accused agreed to make such a confession and then after three hours, PW5, after putting searching questions to the accused, arrived at a finding that the accused was going to make a confession voluntarily and, accordingly, he recorded the confessional statement Ext. 2 of the accused. He than appended his certificate that the confession was voluntarily made by the accused and then taking signature of the accused in the confessional statement sent the record and the accused to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darrang, Mangaldoi. He denied the defence suggestion that sufficient time was not given to the accused for reflection. 20. The confessional statement of A-1 recorded on 22.5.1996 reads as under: After closing my 'gumti' shop (make shift shop) situated at Thakuriapara at night on 15.5.1996 when I was going towards my home about a furlong away form there, I met Babul, Putan Paul and Madhu Dey on the way. The 'Mandap' of Durga puja is situated nearby there. At the time, Babul had a dagger in his hand. At that very moment, our neighbour Shri Umesh Debnath's son Shri Haridas Debnath was going towards the shop house. It was raining at that time. After crossing the said 'Mandap' Putan Paul, Madhu Dey and I caught hold of Haridas. Babul stabbed Haridas in his chest with a dagger. Thereafter said Babul stabbed Haridas thrice in his back and once near his neck. It was a dark night. However, one at close distance could be recognized. Haridas fell down and died there. Thereafter we came to our house. Immediately after causing the incident, Madhu Dey took his heels. Police arrested Babul and Putan Pal. I myself appeare dinthe police station. About a month ago, before this occurrence we (Babul, Putan Pal, Madhu and two boys namely Sambhu and Paritosh and myself) consumed country liquor and under the influence of it, we had an altercation with Haridas father, Umesh and broke almirah, walls, etc of his tea stall. In regard to this matter, when the public convened 'bisar', Thereafter, out of that grudge, we, the above mentioned four accused together killed Haridas, Sambhu and Paritosh were not present when we caused the incident. This is what I have to say. 21. In regard to this matter, when the public convened 'bisar', Thereafter, out of that grudge, we, the above mentioned four accused together killed Haridas, Sambhu and Paritosh were not present when we caused the incident. This is what I have to say. 21. Per contra the learned Public Prosecutor has strenuously argued that all the witnesses so projected by the prosecution had in unison, successfully proved all the circumstances to complete the chain as essential in a case of conviction based on circumstantial evidence and their evidence is absolutely reliable and trustworthy. Primarily, it is argued by the learned P.P. that the confessional statement, Exbt.2, itself would support the prosecution case in its totality and the same is sufficient to rope in the appellant for the offence of killing of the deceased who was a minor child. According to him, given facts and circumstances of the case, the trial court was wholly justified and totally correct in convicting and sentencing the appellant. 22. At the same time the defence also examined Sudip Paul as DW1 who in his deposition, taking the plea of alibi as regards presence of his brother Sanjoy Paul, the appellant No. 3 (for short, A-3) has testified that on the day of occurrence, during night hours Sanjoy Paul was present at home and he did not go out in that night. Two days after the occurrence the police took away Sanjoy from his shop and they also took away knife use for cutting juggery. 23. It would be pertinent to record the injuries so inflicted on the dead body of the deceased. The Doctor, PW11 who conducted the autopsy over the dead body found the following injuries. Dead body of a boy, aged about 10 years fresh in condition, Rigor Mortis present in all limbs, Eyes and mouth closed. Blood stain present in nose and left angle of mouth. No discharge from anus. Injuries: (1) Penetrating wound - on the left anterior chest, in pucoredial region, 3 cm x 1.5 cm x 5 cm deep into thorax. (2) Penetrating wound - under left side of the face, 2.5 cm x 1 cm x 4 cm deep. (3) Penetrating wound - Right upper part of the neck 3 cm x 1.5 cm x 4 cm deep. (4) Incised - wound on the left arm 4 cm above the elbow, 3 cm x 1.5. cm x 3 cm. (2) Penetrating wound - under left side of the face, 2.5 cm x 1 cm x 4 cm deep. (3) Penetrating wound - Right upper part of the neck 3 cm x 1.5 cm x 4 cm deep. (4) Incised - wound on the left arm 4 cm above the elbow, 3 cm x 1.5. cm x 3 cm. 24. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the extensive arguments so canvassed on behalf of the parties. We have also minutely scrutinized and carefully appreciated the testimony of all the witnesses so examined by the prosecution including the medical evidence as well as the defence witness. 25. From the submission of the learned Counsel for the parties, it transpires that apart from the appreciation of the evidence of the witnesses so as to convict the appellant under the circumstantial evidence, basic question that has been raised herein is as regards the acceptability of the confessional statement, Exbt. 2 made by A-1 on 22.5.1996 involving himself and other appellants-co-accused vis-a-vis the retracted confession of A-1 made in his statement recorded on 14.7.2003 under Section 313, Cr.PC. 26. The question of consideration of confession and retracted confession made by the maker and against co-accused was succinctly delved upon by the Apex Court initially in a case of Subramania Goundan v. State of Madras AIR 1958 SC 66 . In paragraph 14, the Supreme Court held as under: 14. The next question is whether there is corroboration of the confession since it has been retracted. A confession of a crime by a person, who has perpetrated it, is usually the outcome of penitence and remorse and in normal circumstances is the best evidence against the maker. The question has very often arisen whether a retracted confession may form the basis of conviction if believed to be true and voluntarily made. For the purpose of arriving at this conclusion the court has to take into consideration not only the reasons given for making the confession or retracting it but the attending facts and circumstances surrounding the same. It may be remarked that there can be no absolute rule that a retracted confession cannot be acted upon unless the same is corroborated materially. It was laid down in certain cases one such being In re Kesava Pillai ILR 53 Mad. It may be remarked that there can be no absolute rule that a retracted confession cannot be acted upon unless the same is corroborated materially. It was laid down in certain cases one such being In re Kesava Pillai ILR 53 Mad. 160, AIR 1929 Mad 837 (B) that if the reasons given by an accused person for retracting a confession are on the face of them false, the confession may be acted upon as it stands and without any corroboration. But the view taken by this Court on more occasions than one is that as a matter of prudence and caution which has sanctified itself into a rule of law, a retracted confession cannot be made solely the basis of conviction unless the same is corroborated one of the latest case being Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab(S) AIR 1957 SC 216 (C), but it does not necessarily mean that each and every circumstance mentioned in the confession regarding the complicity of the accused must be separately and independently corroborated nor is it essential that the corroboration must come from facts and circumstances discovered after the confession was made. It would be sufficient, in our opinion that the general trend of the confession is substantiated by some evidence which would tally with what is contained in the confession.... In contrasting this with the statement of a person making a confession who stands on a better footing, one need only find out when there is a retraction whether the earlier statement, which was the result of remorse, repentance and contrition, was voluntary and true or not and it is with that object that corroboration is sought for.... 27. In Ram Prakash v. State of Punjab AIR 1959 SC 1 , the Supreme Court observed in paragraph 6 as under: 6.... Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act states: When more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, and a confession made by one of such persons affecting himself and some other of such persons is proved, the court may taken into consideration such confession as against such other person as well as against the persons who makes such confession. It will be clear from the terms of this section that where more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, a confession made by any one of them affecting himself and any one of his co-accused can be taken into consideration by the court not only against the maker of the confession but also against his co-accused. The Evidence Act nowhere provides that if the confession is retracted, it cannot be taken into consideration against the co-accused or the confessing accused. Accordingly, the provisions of the Evidence Act do not prevent the court from taking into consideration a retracted confession against the confessing accused and his co-accused.... The amount of credibility to be attached to a retracted confession however, would depend upon the circumstances of each particular case. Although a retracted confession is admissible against a co-accused by virtue of Section30 of the Indian Evidence Act, as a matter of prudence and practice a court would not ordinarily act upon it to convict a co-accused without corroboration. On this basis it is now to be seen whether the confession was voluntary and true. It will then be necessary to consider whether the confession has received full and strong corroboration in material particulars both as to the crime and the appellant's connection with that crime. 28. In Haroom Haji Abdulla v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1968 SC 832 , the Supreme Court in paragraph 11 as follows: In this connection the question of retraction must also be considered. A retracted confession must be looked upon with greater concern unless the reasons given for having made it in the first instance (not for retraction as erroneously stated in some cases) are on the face of them false. Once the confession is proved satisfactorily any admission made therein must be satisfactorily withdrawn or the making of it explained as having proceeded from fear, duress, promise or the like from someone in authority a retracted confession is a weak link against the maker and more so against a co-accused. 29. Law as regards retracted confession has already been settled and the same is also reflected in an important judgment State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru, wherein in paragraphs 32 to 37 the Apex Court ruled as under: 32. 29. Law as regards retracted confession has already been settled and the same is also reflected in an important judgment State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru, wherein in paragraphs 32 to 37 the Apex Court ruled as under: 32. As to what should be the legal approach of the court called upon to convict a person primarily in the light of the confession or a retracted confession has been succinctly summarized in Bharat v. State of U.P. Hidayatullah, CJ, speaking for a three-judge Bench observed, thus: (SCC p.953. para 7) Confession can be acted upon if the court is satisfied that they are voluntary and that they are true. The voluntary nature of the confession depends upon whether there was any threat, inducement or promise and its truth is judged in the context of the entire prosecution case. The confession must fit into the proved facts and not run counter to them. When the voluntary character of the confession and its truth are accepted, it is safe to rely on it. Indeed a confession, if it is voluntary and true and not made under any inducement or threat or promise, is the most patent piece of evidence against the maker. Retracted confession, however, stands on a slightly different footing. As the privy council once stated, in India it is the rule to find a confession and to find it retracted later. A court may take into account the retracted confession, but it must look for the reasons for the making of the confession as well as for its retraction, and must weigh the two to determine whether the retraction affects the voluntary nature of the confessions or not. If the court is satisfied that it was retracted because of an afterthought or advice, the retraction may not weigh with the court if the general facts proved in the case and the tenor of the confession as made and the circumstances of its making and withdrawal warrant its user. All the same, the courts do not act upon the retracted confession without finding assurance from some other sources as to the guilt of the accused. Therefore, it can be stated that a true confession made voluntarily may be acted upon with slight evidence to corroborate it, but a retracted confession requires the general assurance that the retraction was an afterthought and that the earlier statement was true. Therefore, it can be stated that a true confession made voluntarily may be acted upon with slight evidence to corroborate it, but a retracted confession requires the general assurance that the retraction was an afterthought and that the earlier statement was true. This was laid down by this Court in an earlier case reported in Subramania Goundan v. State of Madras. 33. The same learned judge observed in Haroon Haji Abdulla v. State of Maharashtra that a "retracted confession must be looked upon with greater concern unless the reasons given for having made it in the first instance are on the face of them false". There was a further observation in the same paragraph that retracted confession is a weak link against the maker and more so against a co-accused. With great respect to the eminent Judge, the comment that the retracted confession is a 'weak link against the maker' goes counter to a series of decision. The observation must he viewed in the context of the fact that the court was concentrating on the confession of the co-accused rather than the evidentiary value of the retracted confession against the maker. 34. Dealing with retracted confession, a four-judge Bench of this Court speaking through Subba Rao, J., in Pyare Lal Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan clarified the legal position, thus SCR pp.695) A 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 a court shall not base a conviction on such a confession without corroboration. It is not a rule of law, but is only rule of prudence. It cannot even be laid down as an inflexible rule of practice or prudence that under no circumstances can such a conviction be made without corroboration, for a court may, in a 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 a confession, much less on a retracted confession, unless the court is satisfied that the retracted confession is true and voluntarily made and has been corroborated in material particulars. 35. 35. As to the extent of corroboration required, it was observed in Subramania Goundan case that each and every circumstances mentioned in the retracted confession regarding the complicity of the make need not be separately and independently corroborated. The learned Judges observed SCR pp 440-41) It would be sufficient, in our opinion, that the general trend of the confession is substantiated by some evidence which would tally with what is contained in the confession. 36. Then we have the case of Shankaria v. State of Rajasthan decided by a three judge Bench. Sarkaria, J., noted the twin tests to he applied to evaluate a confession (1) whether the confession was perfectly voluntary, and (2) if so, whether it is true and trustworthy. The learned Judge pointed out that if the first test is not satisfied the question of applying the second test does not arise. Then the court indicated one broad method by which a confession can be evaluated. It was said (SCC p.44 3, para 23) The court should carefully examine the confession and compare it with the rest of the evidence, in the light of the surrounding circumstances and probabilities of the case. If on such examination and comparison, the confession appears to be a probable catalogue of events and naturally fits in with the rest of the evidence and the surrounding circumstances, it may be taken to have satisfied the second test. 37. In Parmananda Pegu v. State of Assam this Court while adverting to the expression 'corroboration of material particulars', used Pyare Lal Bhargava case clarified the position, thus (SCC p. 790, para 20). By the use of expression 'corroboration of material particulars' the court has not laid down any proposition contrary to what has been clarified in Subramania Goundan case as regards the extent of corroboration required. The above expression does not imply that there should be meticulous examination of the entire material particulars. It is enough that there is broad corroboration in conformity with the general trend of the confession, as pointed out in Subramania Goundan case. The analysis of the legal position in paras 18 and 19 is also worth noting (SCC p. 788) 18. Having, thus, reached a finding as to the voluntary nature of a confession, the truth of the confession should then be tested by the court. The analysis of the legal position in paras 18 and 19 is also worth noting (SCC p. 788) 18. Having, thus, reached a finding as to the voluntary nature of a confession, the truth of the confession should then be tested by the court. The fact that the confession has been made voluntarily, free form threat and inducement, can be regarded as presumptive evidence of its truth still, there may be circumstances to indicate that the confession cannot be true wholly or partly in which case it loses much of its evidentiary value. 19. In order to be assured of the truth of confession, this Court, in a series of decisions, has evolved a rule of prudence that the court should look to corroboration from other evidence. However, there need not be corroboration in respect of each and every material particular. Broadly, there should be corroboration so that the confession taken a whole fits into the facts proved by other evidence. In substance, the court should have assurance from all angles that the retracted confession was, in fact, voluntary and it must have been true. 30. In the instant case, it is also seen that PW12, the I.O., in his evidence deposed that all the three appellants made their statements and those were recorded under Section 161, Cr.PC by him. Exbt. 5 was the statement of the appellant Ranjit Roy when Exbt. 6 was the statement of appellant Sanjoy Paul. The statement of appellant Jantu Sarkar was recorded as Exbt. 7. He also deposed that he sent the appellant Jantu Sarkar before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate in recording his confessional statement before the PW5, Tarakeswar Lohar who was the then Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Mangaldoi. 31. We have also assessed the evidence of PW5, Tarakeswar Lohar who recorded the confessional statement of Jantu Sarkar. Having gone through his evidence as well as confessional statement Exbt. 2, we are of the considered view that the same was recorded in total compliance of the procedural law prescribed for recording such confession under Section 164 Cr.PC. From the meticulous perusal of the statements of the appellant made in Exbt. 5, Exbt. 6 and Exbt. Having gone through his evidence as well as confessional statement Exbt. 2, we are of the considered view that the same was recorded in total compliance of the procedural law prescribed for recording such confession under Section 164 Cr.PC. From the meticulous perusal of the statements of the appellant made in Exbt. 5, Exbt. 6 and Exbt. 7, it transpires that all the appellants had admitted that since there was dispute with PW2, Umesh Deb Nath as regards some buying and selling of goods, they decided to do harm to PW2 by killing his son, the deceased and accordingly they executed their heinous plan by killing the deceased, From the conjoint reading of the confessional statement as well as the statements recorded by the police would undoubtedly go to demonstrate the motive behind the commission of the offence of killing the deceased which was due to old dispute regarding buying and selling of goods for which they decided to do harm to PW2 by killing his son, the deceased. Even the deposition of PW1, the grandfather of the deceased and PW2, father of the deceased including the statement of the appellants recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC, would clearly indicate that all these appellants were keeping some grudge against PW2 for imposing fine by the villagers upon them for damaging the tea stall of PW2 and this crime of killing the deceased was mainly aimed at to teach a lesson to PW2, Umesh. 32. It is also seen that when the confessional statement made by A-1 was recorded by PW5 on 22.5.1996, he was examined under Section 313 Cr.PC on 14.7.2003 wherein he has retracted from his earlier confession against question No. 5 which was answered by him as under: "I confessed my guilt as police had assaulted me" Again against question No. 8 he answered. Yes, I made the confessional statement under the threat from police. 33. Amazingly when A-1 made his confession before PW5 on 22.5.1996 he was given reasonable time for his reflection. It has come on record from the deposition of PW12 as well as PW5 that initially on 20.5.1996 at about 2.30 p.m. A-1 was produced before PW5 who explained him of the implication regarding confession and sent to jail hajot for directing him for production on 21.5.1996. There was an Assam Bandh, on 21.5.1996. It has come on record from the deposition of PW12 as well as PW5 that initially on 20.5.1996 at about 2.30 p.m. A-1 was produced before PW5 who explained him of the implication regarding confession and sent to jail hajot for directing him for production on 21.5.1996. There was an Assam Bandh, on 21.5.1996. Therefore, A-1 could not be produced and it was on 22.5.1996 around 10.00 a.m. he was produced before PW5 who after cautioning by explaining all the details regarding his confession, kept A-1 in his court chamber giving him about 3 hours time for reflection and at 2.20 p.m. his confession was recorded. During this period significantly A-1 although got ample opportunity and enough time, did not mention that he was giving the confession under the police threat. That apart, A1 also made extra-judicial confession before PW3, the mother of the deceased, on the next day of the occurrence when he met her at a tea stall at Ranipukhuri Bazar telling her that they killed the deceased. He also admitted before PW3 that it was Ranjit, Sanjoy and Madhu who took her son near the temple on the bank of the pond from the stall. According to A-1 as said to the PW3, the three appellants asked him to stay as a guard otherwise they would kill him. Then Madhu pressed the neck of the deceased and A-1 caught the deceased by his hand. At first Ranjit inflicted injury on the person of the deceased with a dagger. Thereafter accused Sanjoy hit with a dagger. Then they threw the dead body in the nearby paddy field. Moreso, injuries inflicted on the dead body of the deceased, as found from the medical evidence found corroboration with the confessional statement of A-1 and PW 3. 34. It is also noticed that PW9 in his evident stated that after two days of the incident the police visited Sanjoy Paul's shop and accused Sanjoy Paul produced a small dagger to the police. The said weapon was seized by the police and exhibited as Exbt. 3. Such recovery of Exbt. 3 on being led and produced by Sanjoy (A3) was also testified by PWs. 2, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. Recovery of Exbt. The said weapon was seized by the police and exhibited as Exbt. 3. Such recovery of Exbt. 3 on being led and produced by Sanjoy (A3) was also testified by PWs. 2, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. Recovery of Exbt. 2, the dagger, in our opinion, is relevant and admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act which provides as under: Provided that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved. 35. Admittedly there was no eye witness to prove the prosecution case. Having meticulously appreciated and assessed the testimony of all those witnesses as well as taking into account the confessional statement, we are of the firm view that the confession was made voluntarily and deliberately and the same appears to be true and trustworthy. Such confession so made by A-1 also, according to us, gets absolute corroboration from the evidence of PW3 before whom A-1 exclusively narrated the entire story of killing the deceased involving all the other appellants herein. We do not find any convincing materials to dislodge the evidence of PW3. The evidence of PW3 is found to be reliable, believable and trustworthy. 36. In so far as the retracted confession, as argued by the learned senior Counsel, is concerned, in the case in hand, as already noticed, the retraction of the confession was a belated one, the retraction being made at the trial when A-1 was examined under Section 313 Cr.PC. It is on the record that no complaint pertaining to any threat, coercion or any inducement was made by A-1 before any authority, even before PWS who recorded his confessional statement at any prior point of time. As we have already discussed, we do not find any cogent ground or plausible reason to disbelieve such confessional statement and the retracted confession in a belated stage cannot be accepted. 37. As we have already discussed, we do not find any cogent ground or plausible reason to disbelieve such confessional statement and the retracted confession in a belated stage cannot be accepted. 37. Section 30 of the Evidence Act which has already been quoted in paragraph-27 hereinabove, being the part of citation in Ram Prakash case (supra), provides that in a joint trial for the same offence where more persons than one are involved, confession made by any ore of them affecting himself or any one of his co-accused can be taken into consideration by the court not only against the maker of the confession but also against his co-accused. It is also true that the Evidence Act nowhere provides that if the confession is retracted, it cannot be taken into consideration against the co-accused or the confessing accused. In view of the settled principle of law we have no hesitation to accept the confessional statement as well as the extra-judicial confession made by A-1 before PW3 are themselves sufficient for upholding the impugned conviction of the appellants. 38. We do, accordingly, fully agree with the views expressed and reasons recorded by the trial court word by word and accordingly we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned conviction and sentence so handed down to the appellants. Consequently we uphold and confirm the impugned conviction and sentence. 39. In the result this appeal fails and stands dismissed. 40. Send down the LCR forthwith. Appeal dismissed.