Judgment :- A.V. Potdar, J. 1) The challenge in this appeal is to the conviction of the Appellant under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code for which nsc. 1/15 cri.appeal.219/1994 he was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine in the sum of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year in Sessions Case no. 257/1993 by the Judgment and Order passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur by his Judgment and Order dated 5th March, 1994. 2) Such of the facts as are necessary for the just decision in this appeal can be summarized as follows :- i) PSI Sanjay Anand Tathe (PW-9) was attached to Karmala Police Station on 18th June, 1993 and was on duty. During his duty hours, around 9.15 a.m. or so, one Balbhim Bhagwan Mavalkar, resident of Zare, lodged report in the Police Station about murder of his nephew by name Kalyan Dagadu Mavalkar at his farm house by some unknown persons. On the basis of this Report (Exhibit43), an offence came to be registered vide C.R. No. 89 of 1993 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against some unknown persons. ii) Following to the registration of an offence, immediately (PW 9) Sanjay Anand Tathe visited Cottage Hospital, Karmala where he drew inquest panchanama (Exhibit-16) on the dead body of the deceased Kalyan Dagadu Mavalkar. Thereafter dead body was referred for post mortem. iii) Doctor Mrs. Saroj Dattatrya Khot attached to Municipal Dispensary, Karmala conducted the post mortem on the dead body of Kalyan. During the post mortem, she noticed following injuries on the person of the deceased:- 1) The deceased Kalyan Dagadu had sustained contusion blueish black colour below left eye. 2) C.L.W. over right temporal region size 1/2” X 1” upto bone deep. 3) Contusion blue black colour on back of left ear. iv) According to her, the injuries were ante-mortem. On examining the dead body, she noticed that there is compound depressed fracture of 2” in size on right temporal region. She also noticed haemotoma on right sub.drual temporal region of brain. She opined that probable cause of death was due to shock and haemmorrhage due to fracture of skull. Accordingly, she prepared post mortem report (Exhibit-21). She also issued advance medical certificate (Exhibit-20). She also noticed haemotoma on right sub.drual temporal region of brain. She opined that probable cause of death was due to shock and haemmorrhage due to fracture of skull. Accordingly, she prepared post mortem report (Exhibit-21). She also issued advance medical certificate (Exhibit-20). v) Thereafter, PW-9 gave visit to Village Zare, to the spot of incident which is situated outside the cattle shed constructed in Gat no. 202 of village Zare, Taluka Karmala, District Solapur. The place of scene of offence was shown by uncle of the deceased in presence of panch witnesses. He drew spot panchanama (Exhibit-17). From the place of the offence he seized blood mixed with soil, constrained soil, one stone (article 1) stained with blood. At the time of panchanama, Juvenile Accused Shobha was present at the spot. Thereafter, further investigation was carried out by one Sudhakar Jaywant Kharbas (PW-11). vi) After PW-11 took over the investigation, he arrested juvenile accused Shobha Kalyan Mavalkar, wife of the deceased under the Arrest Panchanama (Exhibit-28). Clothes were provided to her to change the clothes on her person. Thereafter, the clothes on her person i.e. polyester saree stained with blood (article - 4) was seized under Panchanama (Exhibit-28). During the further investigation, as Juvenile accused Shobha showed her willingness to give her confession, after following due procedure, her confessional statement (Exhibit-39) was recorded by CJJD/JMFC, Karmala Shri Dinesh R.Mahajan (PW-5). During the further investigation, clothes removed from the dead body of the deceased were produced in Karmala Police Station which were seized under Panchnama (Exhibit-18). On 28th June, 1993 appellant and five others were arrested in connection with C.R. No. 89/1993. Payjama on the person of appellant (article 8) was seized under Panchanama (Exhibit-30) in the presence of Panch witness Bharat Gondine (PW-2) and Bharat Waghmare (PW-8). During the investigation, on 24th June, 1993, he recorded the statement of witness Bhagwan Babu Singhade (PW-7) and seven others. On 26th June, 1993 he collected 7/12 extracts of the place of scene of offence. Confessional statement of juvenile accused was recorded on 27th June, 1993. On that day, blood samples of the appellant and juvenile accused were sent to CA for blood grouping along with forwarding letter (Exhibit-43). On 4th July, 1993, other seized articles during the investigation were forwarded to the C.A along with the covering letter (Exhibit-22). Confessional statement of juvenile accused was recorded on 27th June, 1993. On that day, blood samples of the appellant and juvenile accused were sent to CA for blood grouping along with forwarding letter (Exhibit-43). On 4th July, 1993, other seized articles during the investigation were forwarded to the C.A along with the covering letter (Exhibit-22). On 10th July, 1993, statement of Bharat Waghmare (PW-18) was recorded by the Magistrate. On completion of investigation, on 31st August, 1993, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant and others before JMFC, Karmala and after passing necessary committal order, the JMFC committed the trial against the Appellant and others to the Court of Sessions. vii) On committal of trial to the Court of Sessions, learned trial court framed the charge against the appellant and five others at (Exhibit- 3), for an offence punishable under Sections 147, 302 r/w 149 and 120(b) of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant and others pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. 3) It appears from the record received from the trial court that to substantiate the charge leveled against the appellant and others, prosecution has examined in all 11 witnesses including 4 panch witnesses, 2 investigation officers, one medical officer, learned J.M.F.C., Dinesh R. Mahajan, Karmala, two neighbours and uncle of the deceased. Apart from this oral evidence, prosecution also tendered certain documents out of which inquest panchanama (Exhibit-16), spot panchanama (Exhibit-17), panchanama of seizure of the clothes deceased (Exhibit-18), PM report (Exhibit-20), Advance Certificate of death of deceased (Exhibit-20), MM notes (Exhibit-21). CA reports at (Exhibit23, 24 and 25 and sketch of scene of offence prepared by Circle Officer (Exhibit-26) were admitted by the defence which were produced under Section 294 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On appreciation of this evidence led by the prosecution, the trial court was pleased to convict the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. This conviction and sentence is impugned in this appeal. By the same Judgment and Order, Trial Court was pleased to acquit the remaining five accused in the Sessions Trial. Admittedly, the correctness and legality of the order of their acquittal is not questioned by the State by preferring appeal against the acquittal. This conviction and sentence is impugned in this appeal. By the same Judgment and Order, Trial Court was pleased to acquit the remaining five accused in the Sessions Trial. Admittedly, the correctness and legality of the order of their acquittal is not questioned by the State by preferring appeal against the acquittal. 4) For better appreciation of the submissions advanced across the bar by learned senior counsel appearing for the Appellant and learned APP appearing for Respondent-State, it is necessary to advert to the evidence of the material witnesses on which conviction is recorded by the Court below. 5) Before considering the other evidence on record, as the appellant was convicted for an offence punishable under Section. 302 of Indian Penal Code, it is necessary to consider the medical evidence on record. By examining Dr. Saroj Khot (PW-4) medical officer attached to the Municipal Dispensary, Karmala, prosecution has proved the report of post mortem at (Exhibit-21). The report which was admitted by the defence under Section 294 clearly establishes that the cause of death was due to shock and haemmorrhage due to fracture of skull. This opinion given by the medial officer PW-4 is not disputed by the appellant/defence at all. In the light of this, there should not be any hesitation to infer that the death of the deceased Kalyan Dagadu Mavalkar is a homicidal death. 6) Once it is concluded that the death of the deceased Kalyan is a homicidal death, then the further question for consideration is whether the appellant can be held responsible for the injuries found on the person of the deceased Kalyan which resulted in his death. 7) Perusal of the evidence led by the prosecution before the Court below and findings recorded by the learned trial court, it appears that finding of the conviction of the appellant is based on the evidence of PW-5 Dinesh Mahajan, the then Judicial Magistrate, First Class Karmala who has recorded confession of Shobha Malvankar, wife of the deceased. This statement is at Exhibit-39. PW-5 had deposed before the court below that after taking every precaution as provided in the law, he has recorded confessional statement of juvenile offender Shobha. In her statement (Exhibit-39), according to PW-5, she has stated that she had a love affair with the present appellant. Her marriage with the deceased was against her wishes/will. This statement is at Exhibit-39. PW-5 had deposed before the court below that after taking every precaution as provided in the law, he has recorded confessional statement of juvenile offender Shobha. In her statement (Exhibit-39), according to PW-5, she has stated that she had a love affair with the present appellant. Her marriage with the deceased was against her wishes/will. By the said marriage, neither she was happy with the deceased, nor the deceased was happy with her. On this ground, frequent quarrels took place between them. She did not like to work in the agriculture fields. As it was the marriage against her desire, after her marriage with the deceased on four to five occasions, she on her own had left the house of the deceased and had been to the house of her parents. Before the incident, she was asked to go in the agriculture fields to perform the agricultural operations, which she denied. On that count, she was severely beaten by the deceased. Then she went to her parents' house, where the appellant met her. As she had love affair and illicit relationship with the appellant, on enquiry by the appellant she narrated the whole episode to the appellant. Then it was decided that in the next week the appellant will visit the residence of the said Shobha and will remove the hurdle of her husband i.e the deceased. Accordingly in the early morning of the day of the incident, the appellant alongwith the other accused had been to the farm house, where Shobha was residing with the deceased. It was Friday. The deceased was in sleep. The appellant had a little chat with the said Shobha and when he found that the deceased was fast asleep, he picked up the stone which was lying there and banged on the head of the deceased which resulted in the death of the deceased. Thereafter, on his instructions, said Shobha made a melodrama by visiting the fields of the neighbours and narrated the story that some thieves had been to their farm house and due to assault by these unknown persons, her husband has received severe injuries. 8) Other than this evidence, there is evidence of recovery of payjama of the appellant under the panchanama at (Exhibit-13). Panch witness to this panchnama PW-2 and others turned hostile. 9) In this backdrop, we have heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. 8) Other than this evidence, there is evidence of recovery of payjama of the appellant under the panchanama at (Exhibit-13). Panch witness to this panchnama PW-2 and others turned hostile. 9) In this backdrop, we have heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. Ashok Mundargi appearing for the appellant followed with the submissions of learned APP appearing for the State. 10) During the course of submissions across the bar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant would urge that the statement at (Exhibit-39) of Shobha recorded by PW-5, JMFC Karmala is not a confessional statement of Shobha. He would further urge that as Shobha is not jointly tried, she was not an accused in the Sessions Court. Hence, as the alleged confession was recorded of an accused who is not tried in the same case with the Appellant, the said confession cannot be taken into consideration under Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. He would further urge that if the statement of Shobha (Exhibit-39) is excluded from the evidence on record, then absolutely there is no evidence on record to establish the guilt of present appellant. 11) Per contra, learned APP appearing for the Respondent-State supports the reasoning recorded by the Court below, to hold the appellate guilty of the offence. 12) We have considered the rival submissions of learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and learned APP appearing for the State. At this juncture, on perusal of the statement at Exhibit-39 of Shobha, juvenile offender, wife of the deceased, one fact is clear that statement at (Exhibit-39) is exculpatory. In the premise, under the legal scenario, said statement at exhibit 39 of juvenile offender Shobha will not come within the ambit of ‘Confession’. 13) Further, we would like to quote Section 30 of the Evidence Act which reads as follows:- “Section 30 : Consideration of proved confession affecting person making it and others jointly under trial for same offence. 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. 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. (Explanation.- “Offence” as used in this section, includes the abetment of, or attempt to commit the offence.) “ 14) Admittedly, said juvenile-accused Shobha is not an accused tried jointly alongwith the appellant and others in this Sessions Trial. A confession of a co-accused can be taken into consideration, provided the accused is being jointly tried with the said co-accused. Therefore, we will have to accept the submission of learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant that as juvenile offender Shobha is not tried along with the appellant and others, her statement cannot be used against the present appellant, as Section 30 will not apply to the said statement. Only the confessional statement which is covered by Section 30 can be taken into consideration. 15) At this juncture, it is useful to advert to the observations of the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of SantoshBaccharam Patil v/s State of Maharashtra (2003) Bom.C.R.(Cri.) 120 wherein it is observed by the Division Bench that the principle which has to be applied is that first marshal the evidence against the appellant-accused excluding confession altogether from consideration and see whether if it is believed, the conviction can be safely based on it. The principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in KashmiraSingh v./s The State of Madhya Pradhesh (supra) AIR 1952 SC 159 which has been approved by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in HaricharanKurmi v/s State of Bihar, AIR 1964 SC 1184 . In so far as the case in hand is concerned, we do not find there is any independent evidence on record from which conclusion can be drawn about the involvement of accused in the crime. In the absence of the evidence, even assuming that the confession can be read in evidence, it will not be proper to rely only on the uncorroborated confessional statement of the co-accused so as to substantiate conviction of the accused for a serious crime of murder. In the absence of the evidence, even assuming that the confession can be read in evidence, it will not be proper to rely only on the uncorroborated confessional statement of the co-accused so as to substantiate conviction of the accused for a serious crime of murder. 16) It is further useful to advert to the observation of Division Bench of this Court in the case of The State of Maharashtra v/s Prakash Dhawal Khairnar (Patil) & Ors. (2001) ALL MR (Cri.) 222 wherein it is observed that the confession by the co-accused would only be one element in the consideration of all the facts proved in the case ; it can be put into scale and weighted with other evidence and can only be used in support of other evidence and cannot be made a foundation of a conviction. It can only be acted upon if it inculpates the maker and it has to be read as a whole. 17) It has been further observed that although Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that a confession of a co-accused can be taken into consideration against another co-accused but, there is no uniform scale on the basis of which all such confessions are to be weighed. In the ultimate analysis, the weight to be attached to it would depend on the probability of the story contained in it and the relation of the person making it vis-a-vis the co-accused against whom it is made. Where in a case, a confession is made by a son against a father and the story contained therein is probable, far higher weightage would be given to it, than the usual confession made by a co-accused against another. 18) On re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, in the light of the legal parameters which we have quoted in the above paragraphs (supra), other than the statement of Shobha, wife of the deceased at Exhibit – 39 recorded and proved by the evidence of Dinesh Mahajan the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Karmala, there is no other evidence. According to us, the statement at Exhibit – 39, if read in its entirety would not come in the ambit of the definition of 'confession' and secondly, as Shobha was not jointly tried with the appellant and others, under Section 30 of the Evidence Act, the Statement cannot be used. According to us, the statement at Exhibit – 39, if read in its entirety would not come in the ambit of the definition of 'confession' and secondly, as Shobha was not jointly tried with the appellant and others, under Section 30 of the Evidence Act, the Statement cannot be used. We have scanned the entire evidence on record. Other than this evidence, there is no other evidence which links the appellant with the guilt of the offence of murder for which the appellant is held guilty and convicted by the Court below. We have also taken a note that even though Panch witness to the seizure of payjama found on the person of the appellant turned hostile, that recovery took place after four days from the date of incident. Secondly, the blood stains which were found on the payjama do not match with the blood group of the blood of the deceased. Thus, this consideration is also not in favour of the prosecution. In the result, on excluding the statement of Shobha recorded by PW-5 at Exhibit – 39, absolutely there is no other evidence on record which is pointing out towards the guilt of the accused to prove the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for which the appellant was convicted by the court below. Hence, the conviction of appellant under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code for which he was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine in the sum of Rs. 1000/- is liable to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, we quash and set aside the conviction and sentence of the Appellant recorded by the court below under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. 19) In the result, appeal is allowed. Conviction of the Appellant under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code for which he is sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and ordered to pay fine in the sum of Rs. 1000/- by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur in Sessions Case no. 257/1993 is hereby quashed and set aside. 20) The Appeal is allowed. The Appellant is on bail. His bail bond stands cancelled. Amount of fine, if any deposited by the Appellant be refunded to him. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.