DIVISION BENCH
Before Ellis and Amiruddin Ahmed, JJ.
NURUL FAKIR and others – Appellants
versus
THE KING – Respondent

Criminal Appeal No. 121 of 1948, decided on 3rd May, 1949, from the order of the Sessions Judge, Rajshahi, dated 6th May 1948.

Evidence Act (I of 1872), Ss. 114 and 133 – Charge under section 395 Penal Code – Stolen property not recovered from accused – Retracted confession of co-accused and flimsy evidence of association – Emperor direction to jury – Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 289, 297 – Conviction set aside.

The proper direction to jury should be that unless the other evidence against the co-accused will stand on its own legs and justify a conviction, the retracted confession should not be used in any way to support a conviction. Where the only evidence against the accused was some very flimsy evidence of association, there being no evidence to show that they were in any way indeed apart from the fact that they were named in the retracted confession of a co-accused, there was nothing at all against them, the learned Sessions Judge would have exercised a proper discretion had eh told the jury that in law there was no evidence on which they could find the appellants guilty.

49 C. W. N. 719 relied on.

Dinesh Chandra Roy, for the Appellant.

S. Afzal, Deputy Legal Rememberancer, for Crown.