In which of the following case, it was held that “A court shall base a conviction on a confession without corroboration. It is not a rule of law, but is only a rule of prudence. It cannot even be laid down as an inflexible rule of practice, or prudence that under no circumstances such a conviction can be made without corroboration, for a court may, in particular case, be convicted of the absolute truth of a confession and prepared to act  upon it without corroboration, but it may be laid down as a general rule of practice that it is unsafe to rely upon a confession, much less on a retracted confession, unless the court is satisfied that the retracted confession is true and voluntarily made and has been corroborated in material particulars”.