JUDGMENT Madan B. Lokur, J. 1. The Appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for life by a judgment and sentence dated 7-6-2004 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia in Sessions Case No. 66(CH)/2003. 2. The Appellant was charged with the gruesome murder of Bhusia Mandal. The case of the prosecution was that the Appellant first quarreled with Bhusia Mandal and then cut off her head with a dao. 3. The incident was witnessed by the minor son of Bhusia Mandal, that is, Anil Mandal. In fact, he recorded the First Information Report (FIR) on 18-9-2002 in which he said that around 7 p.m. on 17-9-2002 the Appellant came to his house and quarreled with his mother over some petty matter and then beat her with his hands, pressed her neck, pierced and hit her in the back with a dao and then left the place after cutting off her head. At that time Anil Mandal was about 13/14 years of age 4. The incident was witnessed by Anil Mandal's younger sister also but she was not produced in the witness box. We do not find any fault on the part of the prosecution in not producing this child witness. 5. Anil Mandal appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and he stated the broad facts. He stated that his father had expired a year earlier. At about 7 p.m. on the fateful day the Appellant came to his house. When the Appellant asked for the door to be opened, his mother opened the door. Thereafter the Appellant dragged her outside the house by pulling her hair and then brought her back inside the house in the same manner and pushed her on the bed. The Appellant then left the house and came back with a dao. At that time Anil Mandal's mother was washing utensils and the Appellant dragged her to the courtyard by pulling her hair and gave her dao blows on the neck. On seeing this, Anil Mandal ran away from the house towards the military camp, which was about 100 mtrs away from his house. When he came back he saw the Appellant carrying the head of his mother in one hand and also carrying a dao on the other. It is not known whether any action was taken by the military camp but Anil Mandal went and informed the police and lodged an FIR. When he came back he saw the Appellant carrying the head of his mother in one hand and also carrying a dao on the other. It is not known whether any action was taken by the military camp but Anil Mandal went and informed the police and lodged an FIR. In his cross examination he categorically stated that he saw the Appellant cutting the neck of his mother. During his cross examination, Anil Mandal also stated that when he came back from the military camp his mother was alive. There is obviously some discrepancy in this part of the statement of Anil Mandal, but we do not see any significance in this for the reason that he is a young boy of about 13/14 years and is likely to be overpowered by the situation and also because there is no doubt that his mother had been murdered. Whether she died before he left for the military camp or after he returned from there is of no consequence. 6. The other witnesses, that is, PW-2 to PW-5 are formal witnesses and we need not discuss their statements in detail, except to note that some of them saw the severed head of Bhusia Mandal. Therefore, in our opinion, there is no doubt about the fact that the head of Bhusia Mandal was severed from her body. 7. The Appellant gave a confessional statement on 19-9-2002 before the Magistrate under Section164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. His confessional statement reads as follows: Around 6.30 p.m. on 17.9.2002, after closing the cycle shop which I have at the Ghumtibeel area and drinking a little foreign liquor went to the house of a widow Buchia Mandal by name to dissuade her from keeping illicit relation with different male person. As I had made a disclosure of the matter in presence of her son and daughter, she got ashamed of it; and started scolding in obscene language. I lost my patience and went home and taking out a 'Mit dao' again returned to her house. Upon finding her cleansing the utensils, I dealt her 5/6 cut blows and by severing her head off the body and took along both the head and the dao while proceeding to appear at the Police Station. I lost my patience and went home and taking out a 'Mit dao' again returned to her house. Upon finding her cleansing the utensils, I dealt her 5/6 cut blows and by severing her head off the body and took along both the head and the dao while proceeding to appear at the Police Station. When the policeman came and met me on the way, they arrested me and removed to the P.S. This much is what I wanted to say. (Emphasis given). 8. The Magistrate who recorded the confessional statement of the Appellant appeared in the witness box as PW-6 and exhibited and proved the confessional statement. 9. PW-7 is the doctor who conducted the post mortem examination on Bhusia Mandal and he confirmed that her head was severed from her body and that it had been cut off by multiple sharp cuts. The body was brutalized in other ways also, but we need not go into this aspect. 10. PW-8 is the Investigating Officer and he confirmed the statements made by the witnesses including PW-1 Anil Mandal. 11. From the above materials on record, the learned Trial Judge came to the conclusion that there is no doubt that the Appellant had committed the gruesome crime of murdering Bhusia Mandal by severing her head. Accordingly, he convicted the Appellant and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. 12. In this appeal it is submitted by learned Amicus Curiae that in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the Appellant retracted his confessional statement. In our view, such a belated retraction is not acceptable. In Bharat v. State of U.P., (1971) 3 SCC 950 the Supreme Court held: The law as to confession is perhaps too widely stated. Confessions 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. 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 potent piece of evidence against the maker. Retracted confession, however, stands on a slightly footing. As a Privy Council once stated, in India it is rule to find a confession and to find it retracted later. A Court may take into account the retraced confession, but it must look for their reason 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 confession or not. If the court is satisfied that it was retracted because of an after-thought 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. This was laid down by this Court in an earlier case reported in Subramania Gounder v. The State of Madras, AIR 1958 SC 66 . If a retraction to a confessional statement is to be made it should be at the earliest possible opportunity and not at a highly belated stage, such as when the trial is about to be completed. A belated retraction loses its effectiveness due to delay. Therefore, on the facts of this case, we do not accept the contention of learned Amicus Curiae that in view of the retraction of the confessional statement, the Appellant cannot be found guilty of the alleged crime. 13. For our purposes, however, it is not necessary to rely on the confessional statement at all. Therefore, on the facts of this case, we do not accept the contention of learned Amicus Curiae that in view of the retraction of the confessional statement, the Appellant cannot be found guilty of the alleged crime. 13. For our purposes, however, it is not necessary to rely on the confessional statement at all. In our opinion, the testimony of PW-1 Anil Mandal, who was an eye witness to the crime and is the son of the deceased, is enough to convict the Appellant. He has given full details of the events which led to killing of his mother and there is no reason to disbelieve the young boy or conclude that he was motivated in any manner against the Appellant who was living in the same neighbourhood. In his cross examination, the testimony of PW-1 has not been shaken by the defence except to the extent that the witness says that when he came back from the military camp, his mother was still alive. If it is accepted (and it must be) that Bhusia Mandal did die and that her head was in fact severed from the rest of the body, then whether she was alive when Anil Mandal came back from the military camp or she was alive by the time he left the house for the military camp is of no relevance. 14. In our opinion there is enough material in the form of the statement of PW-1 to uphold the conviction of the Appellant. 15. Having said this, we would like to place on record that we are quite unhappy with the manner in which the confessional statement of the Appellant was recorded, and in fact we reject the confessional statement due to serious procedural defects. 16. From the testimony of the Magistrate, who appeared in the witness box as PW-6, it is clear that the Appellant was produced before him on 18-9-2002, soon after he was arrested. The Magistrate then goes on to say that he duly cautioned the Appellant regarding the confession proposed to be made and remanded him to judicial custody with a direction to produce him on the next date, that is, 19-9-2002. In fact, the Appellant was not kept in judicial custody as is evident from the cross examination of the Magistrate. The Appellant was actually sent to Sadiya Police Station for safe custody. In fact, the Appellant was not kept in judicial custody as is evident from the cross examination of the Magistrate. The Appellant was actually sent to Sadiya Police Station for safe custody. In his cross examination, the Magistrate admitted that under trial prisoners of Sadiya Police Station are kept in Central Jail at Dibrugarh but the Appellant was not sent to Dibrugarh because it is some distance away and, therefore, he was confined in Sadiya Police Station. Consequently, the Appellant was in police custody from 18-9-2002 to 19-9-2002 when he was produced for recording his confessional statement at about 2.30 p.m. In other words, the Appellant was in custody of the police throughout 18-9-2002 and 19-9-2002 except, perhaps, during Court hours on 19-9-2002. Under these circumstances, the burden on the prosecution was rather heavy to show that the confession was voluntary. Unfortunately, this aspect of the matter has not even been considered by the prosecution. Therefore, on the given facts, it cannot be said that the confessional statement of the Appellant was voluntary. We hope the Magistrates will take greater care in recording the confessional statement of a person accused of an offence. It is far safer to err on the side of caution rather than to rush through the exercise of recording the confessional statement, only to have it rejected later. 17. However, as mentioned above, we are not placing any importance on the confessional statement made by the Appellant. The testimony of PW-1 Anil Mandal is enough to convict the Appellant. 18. We find no merit in this appeal and accordingly it is dismissed. 19. For the valuable assistance given to us by the learned Amicus Curiae, we direct the Assam State Legal Services Authority to remunerate her with a sum of Rs.5000/-. 20. Send back the LCRs immediately. Appeal dismissed.