JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
The gravamen of the appellants’ complaints in this appeal is, besides insufficiency of identification evidence of the alleged stolen motor vehicle and non-compliance with section 211 of the Criminal Procedure Code at the trial within a trial, the acceptance of the first appellant’s retracted confession without corroboration in some material particulars which confession was in any event a nullity due to the non-compliance with the requisite legal procedures.
At the hearing of this appeal on 23rd September, 1997, Counsel for the appellants submitted that the identification of the motor vehicle the subject-matter of the offence of robbery with violence contrary to section 296 (2) of the Penal Code in respect of which the appellants were charged, tried, convicted and sentenced to death was insufficient to establish the ownership of the said vehicle. According to Counsel, however, this notwithstanding, the conviction of the appellants for that offence turned on the firs…