Ramkrishna Roy vs The State on 28 November, 1951
8. One Kusha Bauri, one of the accused, made a confession on December 1, 1950 and in that confession he implicated the petitioner later however that confession was retracted. The confession of an accused person may be taken into consideration against a co-accused, but what is the value, if any, of a retracted confession of an accused person implicating a co-accused? This Court in the case of 'Haripada Gharami v. Emperor,' 49 Cal W N '719, went to the length of saying that it is a thoroughly useless and worthless piece of evidence: In that case it was held that where the jury were directed that the value of a retracted confession against a co-accused was practically nil that they should not convict him unless it was corroborated by independent evidence on material particulars, it was a misdirection. The Court held that the proper direction was that unless the other evidence against the co-aecused could stand on its own legs and justify a conviction, the retracted confession should not be in any way used to support a conviction.