a loss to understand as to what prevented the prosecution from examining those persons, who had recorded the said statements. Though it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that conviction can be based on voluntary confession, however, rule of prudence requires that wherever possible it should be corroborated by independent witnesses. It is nobody's case that there are no independent witnesses. The persons of the Customs Department, who had recorded the said statements are the best persons to speak about the statements and also the mind of the persons, who had given those statements. Curiously, for reasons best known to the prosecution, the persons who recorded the said statements have not been examined. Though it has been held consistently by the Courts that it is not necessary that each and every circumstance should be corroborated, which is even the essence in Ram Lal's case (supra), however, in the present case, the statements stand totally uncorroborated. When the very statements are put in issue by the accused on the ground that it was not free and voluntary, the prosecution is duty bound to examine independent witnesses to corroborate the said statements. Absence of necessary corroboration hits at the very substratum of the prosecution case. The whole of the prosecution case rests on the statements of the accused, Ex.P139 and the report, Ex.P-140, of the enquiry officer, P.W.23. The enquiry report not having been signed by P.W.23 and the statements of the witnesses not having been corroborated, the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that the confession of the accused cannot form the basis of the conviction deserves acceptance.
