( 1 ) THIS is an application to quash the proceedings in Sessions Case No. 371 of 1998 on the file of the court of the Additional district Judge, Ongole. ( 2 ) THE Sub-Divisional Police Officer, ongole, filed charge-sheet against the petitioner and another for offences under sections 120-B, 323, 324 and 302 read with section 34 IPC alleging that the petitioner (who is A-1) and A-2 are the employees in suvarna Aqua Farm. Pakala and that petitioner who with his wife Abhivami (L. W. 3) and mother (deceased) was living in the house of Gurram Venkateswarlu (L. W. 2) at Ramalayam Street, in the upstairs portion as a tenant, entertaining a suspicion that the said Gurram Venkateswarlu (L. W. 2) developed illicit intimacy with his [petitioner s] wife, with a view to catch them red handed and create a scene, hatched a plan with A-2 and two other friends to show to the people in that locality that venkateswarlu and Abhirami are indulging in extra-marital sexual life, went to the portion of Gurram Venkateswarlu at about 1. 30 a. m. on 22-2-1996, after consuming toddy, and woke him up and caused injuries to him and later went to the room of Abhirami to bring her to the bed room of Venkateswarlu, and when the deceased tried to go to the rescue abhirami, Chandra inflicted an injury onher head with an iron rod resulting in her death, and Kannan and A-2 brought Abhirami to the bed room of Venkateswarlu, gagged her, and Venkateswarlu beat them with hands and rods, and due to the dispute between the petitioner and his associates with regard to the remuneration payable to A-2 and two others, they [a-2 and two others] took away the bangles and other jewellery belonging to abhirami and the ring of the petitioner, after causing injuries to him. P. Subbaiah [l. W. 1] who has a shop near the house of venkateswarlu, seeing a gathering of people near the house of Venkateswarlu at about 10 a. m. on 22-2-1996, finding the deceased dead, and the petitioner and Abhirami lying unconscious with injuries gave a police report. After investigation police filed charge- sheet only against the petitioner and A-2 because the identity of the two others who helped them was not established. After investigation police filed charge- sheet only against the petitioner and A-2 because the identity of the two others who helped them was not established. The learned magistrate took cognizance of the case and committed it to a Court of Sessions for trial, the learned Sessions Judge, after hearing the public Prosecutor and the counsel for the eccused, framed charges under Sees. 120-B and 302 read with Section 34 and 324 IPC against the petitioner and another. This betition is filed to quash those charges against the petitioner. ( 3 ) THE contention of the learned counsel or the petitioner is that except the alleged confession said to have been made by the other accused implicating the petitioner, there is no other evidence or material on record to show that the petitioner committed the offences alleged against him and since in haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar and State v. Nalini it is held that confession of an accused is not admissible in evidence and since the police have not filed the panchanama of confession allegedly made by the other accused into court, the learned Sessions Judge was in error in framing charges against the petitioner. It is his contention that since there is no legally admissible evidence on record against the petitioner, and even if all the averments made by the charge-sheet are taken to be true they do not establish the offences alleged against the petitioner, the proceedings against the petitioner are liable to be quashed. He relied on K. K. Jajodia v. State (C. B. L)3, Sharda Prasad v. State of Bihar and State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy in support of his contention. ( 4 ) I have gone through all the statements of witnesses recorded by the police under section 161 Cr. P. C ( 5 ) P. Subbaiah (L. W. 1) on whose report the police registered the F. I. R. stated that on 22-2-1996 at about 9 a. m. whenhe went to the shop, he having noticed a gathering people near the house of G. Venkateswarlu, where the petitioner also was living as a tenant, found the household articles scattered all over the place and the petitioner and his wife lying unconscious with injuries and the deceased dead with a head injury, assuming that some thieves must have been responsible therefor gave a police report. G. Venkateswarlu (L. W. 2) (landlord of the petitioner) stated that on the date of incident when he was sleeping alone in his bed room at about midnight he opened the door on hearing a knock on the door and found the petitioner along with three strangers and enquired the petitioner as to why he was woken up, whereupon petitioner and others dragged him forcibly into his bed room, where the petitioner abused him in vulgar language imputing illicit intimacy between him (G. Venkateswarlu) and Abhirami (wife of the petitioner) and attacked him with stick and chain mercilessly, giving out that a lesson would be taught to him, and exhorted the three other to bring Abhirami there (to the room of G. Venkateswarlu), stating that he would settle the score with her, and in the meanwhile, because of the injuries received by him, he slipped into unconsciousness. Abhirami (L. W. 3), the wife of the petitioner, did not say anything incriminating against the petitioner. V. Ramesh (L. W. 4) stated that petitioner and Hari Babu (A-2) are thick frineds and that on 21-2-1996 he found them talking to each other for about one hour, and two strangers also participated in that meeting and discussed something with the petitioner and Hari Babu (A-2) and later all the four went near the sea-shore and returned back about one hour later, and on the next day night he came to know that the petitioner s mother was killed. S. Poornachander Rao (L. W. 5) stated that when he was proceeding to his house at about 1. 30 a. m. , during night of 21-12-1996 after closing his cool drink shop, he saw the petitioner with three strangers and on the next day he came to know that the mother of the petitioner was killed. B. Venkateswarlu (L. W. 6) stated that on 21-2-1996, which was ramzan day, petitioner came to his shop and purchased four bottles of todday and on enquiry, told him that he is working in suvarna Aqua Farm as an Engineer and is living in the house of Gurram Venkateswarlu. V. Sundaramma (L. W. 7), a neighbour of the petitioner, stated that on hearing that thieves entered the house of G. Venkateswarlu (L. W. 2), went to his house and found venkateswarlu and others lying with injuries and the mother of the petitioner (the deceased) dead. V. Sundaramma (L. W. 7), a neighbour of the petitioner, stated that on hearing that thieves entered the house of G. Venkateswarlu (L. W. 2), went to his house and found venkateswarlu and others lying with injuries and the mother of the petitioner (the deceased) dead. K. Hanumantha Rao (L. W. 8) stated that he found the petitioner and his wife, and Venkateswarlu (L. W. 2) lying with injuries. The statements of other witnesses are not relevant for disposal of this petition. ( 6 ) IN Haricharan Kurmi (1 supra) case and nalini case (2 supra), relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is held that confession by a co-accused is a very weak type of evidence and does not fall within the definition of evidence under Section 3 of evidence Act, and is only one element in the consideration of all the facts proved in the case, and can be put into the scale and weighed with other evidence, and confession of a co-accused can be used only in support of other evidence, but not as foundation for ordering conviction of the accused. ( 7 ) K. K. Jajodia (3 supra) has no relevance for a decision in this petitionbecause it relates to granting of anticipatory bail under section 438 Cr. P. C. In Sharda Prasad (4 supra) and L. Muni Swamy case (5 supra) the supreme Court considered the power of the high Court under Section 482 Cr. P. C. to quash criminal proceedings. The ratio in those decisions is that if the High Court comes to a conclusion that allowing the criminal proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court, or if the ends of justice requires that the proceeding ought to be quashed, the High Court can quash the criminal proceedings. It is also held that for the purpose of determining whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against an accused, this court has wide discretion, and can go into the question whether the material on record if, unrebutted, reasonably be taken to establish the guilt of the accued and culminate in conviction, or not, and if the material is such that no one can reasonably come to the conclusion that the accused committed the offence alleged, the High Court can quash the criminal proceedings against the accused. ( 8 ) DILWAR Babu Kurane v. State of maharashtra, relied onby the learned counsel for petitioner is a case where a Lecturer of a private College appointed to evaluate the answer scripts of a public examination was accused of demanding bribe and was charge- sheeted under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act. The Supreme Court held that the court while framing charges has to consider the total effect of evidence and documents produced before it, and in the circumstances of that case held that, as no incriminating articles were found in the possession of the accused and in view of the inordinate delay in recording the statements of the witnesses by the police, no prima facie case is made out against the accused and quashed the proceedings against the accused. ( 9 ) APART from charge under Section 120-B ipc read with Section 302 IPC there is also a charge under Section 302 read with section 34 IPC, and Section 324 IPC, against the petitioner. The investigation made by the police reveals that the petitioner was in the company of three strangers during the night of the incident. In fact the statement of gurram Venkateswarlu (L. W. 2) shows that he saw the petitioner along with three strangers and that petitioner and others dragged him forcibly into his bed room, that petitioner and abused him in a filthy language imputing illicit intimacy between him (L,w. 2) and his (petitioner s) wife and beat him with chains and sticks mercilessly. From the statements of the other witnesses recorded by police, referred to above, it is clear that the case of the prosecution rests on the circumstantial evidence. If the statements of Gurram Venkateswarlu (L. W. 2) poornachandra Rao (L. W. 5) and b. Venkateswarlu (L. W. 6) are taken into consideration, it cannot be said that there is no prima facie evidence against the petitioner. There is prima facie material for the petitioner being tried for a charge under Section 302 read Section 34 IPC and Section 324 IPC. ( 10 ) NO doubt the investigation does not disclose direct evidence of conspiracy under section 120-B IPC against the petitioner. It is well known that conspiracy can, and has to be inferred from the facts and circumstances of each case. It is difficult for the prosecution to prove conspiracy by direct evidence. ( 10 ) NO doubt the investigation does not disclose direct evidence of conspiracy under section 120-B IPC against the petitioner. It is well known that conspiracy can, and has to be inferred from the facts and circumstances of each case. It is difficult for the prosecution to prove conspiracy by direct evidence. So, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, the court has to arrive at a conclusion whether there was a conspiracy for committing murder or not. Since there is prima facie material for framing charges under section 34 read with Section 302 IPC and section 324 IPC against the petitioner, and since conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC is a matter to be inferred from the evidence on record it is clear that charges are not framed merely on the basis of confession of a co- accused, therefore, I find no grounds to quash the charges framed against the accused. Hence the Petition dismissed. The learned sessions Judge shall dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible, at any rate before the end of October, 2002, uninfluenced by the observations in this order.