Summary: Acquittal granted---(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---- ----Ss. 120-B, 420, 382 & 414---Criminal conspiracy, cheating, theft, and receiving stolen property---Conviction and sentence---Appellant, along with co-accused, was charged with criminal conspiracy, cheating, and theft of a vehicle---Prosecution relied on the ocular account of the complainant (P.W.1) and his cleaner (P.W.2), along with circumstantial evidence and the appellant’s confessional statement recorded under S. 164, Cr.P.C.---Trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine under Ss. 120-B, 420, and 382, P.P.C., along with additional imprisonment under S. 414, P.P.C. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----S. 164---Confession of accused---Admissibility---Retracted confession---Appellant retracted his confession, alleging that it was obtained under coercion and duress---Trial Court relied on the confession for conviction---Held, that the confession was not voluntary, as the appellant alleged mistreatment and coercion by the police and jail authorities---No corroborative evidence was provided to establish that the confession was made freely and voluntarily---In the absence of independent corroboration, a retracted and exculpatory confession was not a sufficient basis for conviction. (c) Criminal trial---- ----Role of accused in the occurrence---Presumption of innocence---Appellant was a young boy aged 16/17 years and was picked up alone at a later stage while the other co-accused were already present in the vehicle---No evidence suggested prior conspiracy or shared intent with the main accused---Held, that the prosecution failed to establish that the appellant actively participated in the crime or shared a common intention with the other accused. (d) Duty of trial court---- ----Obligation to ensure fair trial and inquire into material allegations---Appellant made serious allegations of mistreatment, including coercion and sexual abuse by a police officer and another individual during detention---Trial Court failed to investigate these claims despite their relevance to the voluntariness of the confession---Held, that the trial court, as a fact-finding body, should have inquired into the allegations to ensure a fair trial and avoid wrongful conviction. (e) Criminal liability---- ----Common intention under S. 34, P.P.C.---Failure to frame charge properly---Trial Court did not explicitly charge the appellant under S. 34, P.P.C., nor was he questioned regarding the existence of a common intention with the main accused---Absence of such a charge indicated that no case of shared criminal intent was made out against him. ----Disposition: Appeal accepted. Convictions and sentences set aside. Appellant acquitted and ordered to be released forthwith.