BERI, C.J.—By his judgment dated June 10, 1971 the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Sirohi convicted applicant Ummedmal for offences under sec. 466 read with sec. 114 of the Indian Penal Code, and sec. 454 read with sec. 109 of the Indian Penal Code. An appeal was taken before the learned Sessions Judge, Pali, who, by his judgment dated December 8, 1971, acquitted Ummedmal of the offence under sec. 454 read with sec. 109 of the Indian Penal Code but maintained his conviction under sec. 466 read with sec. 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge however, reduced the sentence from one year to four months simple imprisonment but maintained the fine of Rs. 100/-. Still dis-satisfied, Ummedmal is before me seeking the revision of the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. 2. In order to appreciate the background in this case, it will be necessary to recount certain material facts. Mst. Sushila Devi (PW/10) was posted as a nurse in the Ayurvedic Dispensary, Sumerpur, during the material period. No official accommodation was provided for the nurse and on a request being made to the Gram Panchayat, Sumerpur, for allotment of a house to her she was provided with one and the rent fixed was Rs. 25/- per month. Mst. Sushila Devi paid the rent for one month and then neglected and as Mst. Sushila Devi did not pay the rent the Gram Panchayat, Sumerpur, insisted that she should vacate the premises. Certain correspondence followed between Shri Davendra Kumar Vaidhya (PW/6) with the higher authorities on the subject and, the Collector Pali by his order dated November 6, 1965, restrained the Gram Panchayat, Sumerpur, from getting the house which was occupied by Mst. Sushila Devi, vacated till further orders. Ummedmal Upsarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Sumerpur, was not happy with Mst. Sushila Devi and began to harass her. It has been alleged that Ummedmal manipulated the transfer of Mst. Sushila Devi to village Bhoola and even then she did not vacate the house. Her transfer was later on cancelled and when she was asked to join her duties at Sumerpur on April 21, 1966, Mst Sushila Devi was informed by Ambalal Compounder, that the lock of her house had been broken open by the Gram Panchayat, Sumerpur and her articles had also been removed. Her transfer was later on cancelled and when she was asked to join her duties at Sumerpur on April 21, 1966, Mst Sushila Devi was informed by Ambalal Compounder, that the lock of her house had been broken open by the Gram Panchayat, Sumerpur and her articles had also been removed. She rushed to Sumerpur and found that the lock of her house had been broken open and her articles had been taken away by the Gram Panchayat, Sumerpur. She lodged a written report Ex. P/14 with the Superintendent of Police, Pali. Thereupon, a case under secs.451 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. In the course of investigation it was discovered that the Gram Panchayat convened a general meeting on April 10, 1966 to discuss the business of the Gram Panchayat and as per proceedings recorded in the relevant register eleven Panchas were present and eleven resolutions were passed and thereafter the statement of the income and expenditure of the said Panchayat was recorded. The signatures of the Panchas were also obtained at the end of the recorded minutes but the small space left between the resolution No. 11 and the statement of income and expenditure a resolution No. 12 was squeezed in to the effect that as Mst. Sushiladevi had not paid her rent she may be evicted from the house and the lock thereof may be broken open. It was alleged that the said resolution was a forgery committed by Bhanwarlal, Secretary of the Gram Panchayat, Sumerpur, at the instance of Ummedmal Upsarpanch, who was acting as the Sarpanch during the material time. It was said that Bhagirath Singh and Bhikaram were also arrayed far committing offence under sec. 454 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, however, found that no offence was made out against Bhagirath Singh, Bhanwarlal and Bhikaram and they were acquired under secs. 454 and 465 of the Indian Penal Code but the convicted Ummedmal as already indicated above. The appeal of Ummedmal succeeded partly as I have mentioned above and he has now come before me. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that assuming that the resolution No. 12 X to Y in Ex. P/4 is a forgery, the short question still remains namely, that there is no evidence to show that Bhanwarlal forged it at the instance of Ummedmal. 4. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that assuming that the resolution No. 12 X to Y in Ex. P/4 is a forgery, the short question still remains namely, that there is no evidence to show that Bhanwarlal forged it at the instance of Ummedmal. 4. The learned Deputy Government Advocate endeavoured to support the conviction of Ummedmal by saying that the following are the links that connect Ummedmal with the abetment of the crime— (1) The statement made by Bhanwarlal, under sec.342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 in answer to questions Nos.6, 7 and 8. (2) Statement of Tejraj (PW/4). (3) Statement of Chouthmal (PW/5). 5. I have carefully examined the judgments of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge and that of the Sessions Judge, Pali. I agree with the conclusions reached by them that the resolution No. 12 between X and Y in Ex. P/4 is a false document a forgery. The writing has been squeezed in a small space and is altogether different in ink and the size of the characters preceding and following the resolution. I have also no difficulty in reaching the conclusion that it is in the hand writing of Bhanwarlal, the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat, Sumerpur, who has been acquitted of forgery. The short and yet vital question is whether Bhanwarlal had committed this forgery at the instigation of Ummedmal Up-sarpanch who was acting as the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat at the relevant time. 6. Sec. 107 of the Indian Penal Code defines abetment. "A person abets the doing of a thing who instigates any person to do that thing or who engages with one or more person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing......or intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing." According to the trend of the prosecution, it appears that exercising his superior position, Ummedmal instigated Bhanwarlal to squeze the resolution No. 12 in the proceedings of the Sumerpur Gram-Panchayat Minutes Book after the signatures of the members The instigation in the present case, according to the prosecution, consists in suggesting or stimulating Bhanwarlal to insert this resolution in the proceedings book on the ground that the Sarpanch had discused the matter amongst the members and the resolution was required to be entered into and Bhanwarlal Secretary as a subordinate to Ummedmal promply complied. What is the evidence of instigation in this case? The answer to this question will settle the fate of this revision. According to the learned Deputy Government Advocate, the totality of evidence is of three counts. Firstly, the statement of Bhanwarlal himself. The question which was put to Bhanwarlal at No. 6 was that Tejraj PW/4 and Chouthmal PW/5 have said that on 10-4-1966 the meeting of the Gram-Panchayat, Sumerpur, had taken place and the resolution No. 12 X to Y was not passed and the language between X and Y was not writen on that day. In answer to this, Bhanwarlal has said that Ummedmal had asked him to write this statement with the assurance that the matter had already been discussed amongst the members and it was his responsibility and that he (Bhanwarlal) should insert it In answer to question No. 7, Bhanwarlal has admitted that the portion between X to Y was in his hand writing and in answer to question No. 8 he admitted that Sarpanch had told him that he will have to obey him if he wanted to remain in the service. Bhanwarlal added that he did not know why the resolution was inserted. 7. Sec 30 of the Indian Evidence Act lays down that "when more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, and a confession made by one of such persons affecting himself and some other of such persons is proved, the Court may take into consideration such confession as against such other person as well as against the person who makes such confession." The Indian Evidence Act does not define what confession is but it is now authoritatively settled by the pronouncement of the Judicial Commitee in Pakla Naraiyan vs. R. (l) where Lord Atkin observed— "No statement that contains self exculpatory matter can amount to a confession, if the exculpatory statement is of some fact which if true would negative the offence alleged to be confessed." This observation has been relied on by the Supreme Court in Palvinder vs. sec. (2) and in Omprakash vs. sec. (3). The authoritative definition in Pakla Narayans case (1) appears to be that a confession must either be an express acknowledgment of guilt of the offence charged certain and complete in itself, or it must admit substantially all the facts which constitute the offence. (2) and in Omprakash vs. sec. (3). The authoritative definition in Pakla Narayans case (1) appears to be that a confession must either be an express acknowledgment of guilt of the offence charged certain and complete in itself, or it must admit substantially all the facts which constitute the offence. The aforesaid statement of Bhanwarlal is not a confession of a charge because he clearly exculpates himself and inculpates Ummed Mal. That being so, it does not fall within the ambit of the word "confession" as envisaged by sec. 30 of the Indian Evidence Act and it is not relevant for consideration and must be excluded. I may here add that in Balbir Singh vs. State of Punjab(4) their Lordships have observed that "so far as the confessional statement of one accused is concerned, it may be taken into consideration against the other accused if it fulfils the conditions laid down in sec 30 of the Evidence Act. One of the conditions is that the confession must implicate the maker substantially to the same extent as the other accused person against whom it is sought to be taken into consideration." The statement in answer to question Nos- 6, 7 and 8 by Bhanwarlal is a clear proclamation that he was merely an innocent instrument obeying the words of the Up-Sarpanch without any consciousness that it was a forgery which was being committed. It will be erroneous to rely on his so called "confession" and it is thus not admissible in evidence qua Ummedmal. 8. Then come the consideration of the statement of the two witnesses. Tejraj (PW/4) has merely stated that Bhanwarlal told him that -6 days after 10-4-96 that at the behest of Ummedmal he had written an additional resolution relating to the house occupied by Mst. Sushila Devi midwife. He has, however, stated that such a resolution was not passed in the meeting of the 10th of April, 1966 and that Bhanwarlal used to write the proceedings in accordance with the wishes of the Panchas or of the Sarpanch. The question which arises for my consideration is whether the aforesaid statement of Tejraj (PW/4 ) amounts to instigation. The answer is in the plain negative. None of the witnesses has stated that Bhanwarlal was directed by Ummedmal to write resolution No. 12. The question which arises for my consideration is whether the aforesaid statement of Tejraj (PW/4 ) amounts to instigation. The answer is in the plain negative. None of the witnesses has stated that Bhanwarlal was directed by Ummedmal to write resolution No. 12. All that they prove is that it was the duty of the Secretary Bhanwar Lal to write the resolution as the Panchas directed or as the Sarpanch directed. Chouth Mal (PW/5) has merely spoken about the practice which prevailed about the recording of the minutes. In my opinion, what Ummedmal told Bhanwarlal and Bhanwarlal told this witness would be an instance of hearsay evidence not sufficient to fasten the charge of instigation on the part of Ummedmal to get the forgery committed by Bhanwar Lal. Bhanwarlal has been acquitted and nothing more needs be said about him. 9. There is no other evidence that has been pointed out to me connecting Ummedmal with the forged passage resolution No. 12 between X and Y in Ex. P/4. The evidence discussed above, in my opinion, is insufficient to fasten the guilt of abetment of the offence under sec. 466 of the Indian Penal Code. 10. The revision is accepted, judgment dated December 8, 1971 of the learned Sessions Judge, Pali is set aside and Ummedmal is hereby acquitted of the charge under sec. 466 read with sec. 114 of the Indian Penal Code. Fine, if paid, by him, shall be refunded. He is on bail and need not surrender.