JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal revision is preferred by the petitioners against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur whereby charges under sections 120-B, 457, 380, 302 I.P.C. and in the alternative under sections 302 read with 34 and 460 I.P.C. were framed. 2. Briefly stated the facts alleged by the Prosecution are these. That on the night intervening 17th and 18th of October 1979 house breaking was committed in the temple of Ramdeoji and theft of Rs. 3200/- and other valuables was made. During the course of this transaction, Buldansingh and Moti Maharaj were murdered. It is further the case of the State that the petitioners with Ram Chander and Amar Chand had entered into a criminal conspiracy to commit the aforesaid offence. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public prosecutor. It is an admitted position that there is no direct evidence as to the criminal conspiracy or the participation of the petitioners in the crime. Before I take up the evidence disclosed against each of the petitioners, I may deal with the alleged extra judicial confession made by Ram Chander. Motaram in his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. stated that Ramdeo confessed before him that he and Amriya along with two persons had committed the offence. One of those two other persons appeared to him like Kamliya. It is now well settled that the confession of a co-accused against the other accused is inadmissible and it can only be taken into consideration, once the offence is proved by other evidence. It was thus observed in Haricharan Kurmi Jogia Hajam v. State of Bihar (AIR 1964 Supreme Court, Page 1184) : "Thus, the confession of a co-accused person cannot be treated as substantive evidence and can be pressed into service only when the Court is inclined to accept other evidence and feels the necessity of seeking for an assurance in support of its conclusion deducible from the said evidence. In criminal trials, there is no scope for applying the principle of moral eases where the other evidence adduced against an accused person is wholly unsatisfactory and the prosecution seeks to rely on the confession of a co-accused person, the presumption of innocence which is the basis of criminal jurisprudence assists the accused person and compels the Court to render the verdict that the charge is not proved against him and so, he is entitled to the benefit of doubt." I am therefore, of the opinion that the statement of Motaram is irrelevant to prove or disclose any offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioners. The evidence against Kamal Kishore is to the effect that he was seen by one witness Ridmal with a motor cycle. This evidence by itself is obviously insufficient to connect this petitioner with the offence. There was no material on the basis of which the aforesaid charges could be framed against him. 4. The evidence against Abdul Gafoor is that he was arrested on 26.11.1979, his wrist watch and a ring appear to be stained with human blood. Obviously this fact by itself one month after the offence was of little importance. The other evidence is that Abdul Gafar repaired the motor cycle of Amarchand. One other witness Sarwan states that he saw Gafar Amriya talking and further Amriya told him that he should get one pant piece for Rajender. It is difficult to frame any charge against Abdul Gafar on the basis of the aforesaid evidence. As regards Rajendrakumar and Shankergiri there is some evidence that on or about the incident they were seen talking with Ram Chander or Amar Chand. It further appears from the statement of Motilal that Rajender and Kamal took six liters of petrol in the motor cycle of Amarchand. From the statement of Dhararri Chand it appears that Amriya got one pant piece each for Gafar and Shankergiri. The further evidence against Shankergiri is that on the fateful night he was working in the shop of Dhangiri. He left the shop at midnight and did not return Statements of some witnesses are to this effect. One witness Ridmal saw Amarchand going towards Ramdeora. In nut shell this is all the evidence against the petitioners. The further evidence against Shankergiri is that on the fateful night he was working in the shop of Dhangiri. He left the shop at midnight and did not return Statements of some witnesses are to this effect. One witness Ridmal saw Amarchand going towards Ramdeora. In nut shell this is all the evidence against the petitioners. It is therefore, vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no evidence worth the same on the basis of which any charge could be framed against any of the petitioners. The learned Public Prosecutor could not effectively rebut the contention or bring to my notice any other piece of evidence on the basis of which any charge could conceivably be framed against the petitioners I am therefore, of the opinion that there was no material before the learned Sessions Judge on the basis of which he could have framed the charge against the petitioners in the manner stated above. 5. I, therefore, accept this revision petition and quash the charges framed against the petitioners.Revision accepted. *******