ORDER S.C. Pandey, J. 1. They are heard. The applicant has been charged with an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing murder of Jyoti, at village Bhumia, near Babbu, in the intervening night of 18th and 19th of February, 1999. The applicant denies commission of such offence. 2. It appears from the prosecution case that on 18th of February, 1999 a dead-body was found in village Bhumia, near Babbu Dhaba within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Simga, District Raipur. A Marg No. 1/99 was, therefore, registered at Police Station, Simga. Subsequently, it was found that the dead-body was that of Jyoti alias Durga, who was reported to be involved in doing prostitution in association with co-accused Uma Gupta. Uma gupta is being tried under Sections 201/302 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 6(1) of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. The case, against the applicant, however, is that he is liable for murder of Jyoti alongwith two co-accused - Sanjiv Choubey and Raju alias Rajiv Tiwari. It is alleged that the applicant alongwith the said co-accused persons murdered Jyoti by driving Maruti van over the body of the deceased in the intervening night of 18th and 19th of February, 1999. The applicant wants that this Court should quash the charge framed against him by the Trial Court, on the ground that there is nothing specific in the charge-sheet which would ultimately convict him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that oven if all the allegations made in the charge-sheet are accepted, there is no legal evidence direct or circumstantial against the applicant proving that he was one of the accused persons who drove Zen Maruti Car over the body of deceased Jyoti. 4. It appears that the learned Sessions Judge was also of the view that there is no direct evidence against the applicant. However, he was further of the view that there is circumstantial evidence against all the accused persons including the applicant. 5. The learned counsel for the non-applicant/State was, therefore, asked by this Court to enumerate the circumstances making a complete chain pointing out to the guilt of the applicant. However, he was further of the view that there is circumstantial evidence against all the accused persons including the applicant. 5. The learned counsel for the non-applicant/State was, therefore, asked by this Court to enumerate the circumstances making a complete chain pointing out to the guilt of the applicant. The learned counsel for the State was unable to satisfy this Court that there was any direct or circumstantial evidence against the applicant as he was not seen by any of the witnesses committing the offence or was, in any way, implicated by any indirect evidence showing that he is guilty. All that the learned counsel for the State pointed out from the police case diary is that all the other co-accused made statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. While making discovery, one of the co-accused, Raju alias Rajiv Tiwari has stated that it was the applicant Ajay Shrivastava, who had driven the car over Ku. Jyoti. Thereafter, car was left with one Sushil Shukla which he will produce. It is well established that while making a memorandum under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, so far as it relates to the statement of the accused which directly results in discovery of the weapon of offence, would be admissible and the rest statement, even if recorded by the police, is liable to be ignored at the time of trial of the case. Moreover, the contention of an accused against the co-accused cannot be used in evidence while he does not inculpate himself. Here, Raju alias Rajiv Tiwari has not said that the applicant Ajay Shrivastava was guilty of offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code at his instance and he too was involved in the murder of Ku. Jyoti. Looked either way, there is hardly any legal evidence against the applicant. It was but natural for Raju alias Rajiv Tiwari, who is himself alleged to be a co-accused by the prosecution, to pass the guilt to the applicant Ajay Shrivastava in order to save his own skin. Such statement would not be admissible in evidence during the trial of the case. 6. The result is that there is hardly any material on record from which it could be inferred that the applicant Ajay Shrivastava is liable to be charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The revision is, accordingly, allowed. Such statement would not be admissible in evidence during the trial of the case. 6. The result is that there is hardly any material on record from which it could be inferred that the applicant Ajay Shrivastava is liable to be charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The revision is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned order dated 25-3-2000, passed by the Court below in Sessions Trial No. 394 of 1999 framing charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the applicant Ajay Shrivastava, is hereby set aside and the applicant is directed to be discharged. In view of the above order I.A. No. 4332/2000 stands rejected as infructuous. C.C. as per rules. 7. Criminal Revision allowed.