JUDGMENT : Mr. Mohammad Rafiq, J. These two appeals on behalf of accused-appellant Vijay Kumar, one through counsel and another by post through Superintendent, Central Jail, Jodhpur, have been filed assailing judgment and order dated 02.04.2007 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Khetri, whereby the trial court convicted him for offence under Sections 302/34, 364 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment with fine of Rs.200/- for offence under Section 302/34 IPC; to suffer ten years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 364 IPC; to suffer seven years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months simple imprisonment for offence under Section 201 IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 07.07.2002 a written report (Exhibit P-9) was submitted by complainant Smt. Pista Devi (PW-3) W/o late Mr. Subhash, by caste Ahir, Resident of Puhania, District Jhunjhunu, to the Station House Officer, Singhana, at her house situated at Puhania, stating therein that in the morning of 17.06.2002 at about 10.00 AM, her daughter Mintu went out of the house to buy watermelon and, on the way, she found Virendra S/o Jeeta Ram and Mintu S/o Sher Singh. They misbehaved with her daughter and teased her. Her daughter objected thereto but they did not stop and followed her up to the house. At that time, her husband Ummed Slot Ishwar Singh R/o Kushalpura, who is son-in-law of complainant, was also present at the house. Her daughter narrated the incident to the complainant and her son-in-law. The complainant and her son-in-law asked them not to do so. Thereupon, those two boys misbehaved with them also and threatened to kill Manoj, son of complainant, and her son-in-law, within ten days. Her son-in-law was frightened. He made telephonic call to his father, who accompanied by 5- 7 persons, came to-village Puhania in a jeep and took daughter and son-in-law Ummed to their village Kushalpura. It was toll alleged that on 02.07.2002 at around 8-9 PM, her son Manoj had gone to attend the wedding ceremony of daughter of Phoolaram S/o Madura® Kumhar. He made telephonic call to his father, who accompanied by 5- 7 persons, came to-village Puhania in a jeep and took daughter and son-in-law Ummed to their village Kushalpura. It was toll alleged that on 02.07.2002 at around 8-9 PM, her son Manoj had gone to attend the wedding ceremony of daughter of Phoolaram S/o Madura® Kumhar. In the evening of that very lay at about 8-9 PM, Ranglal S/O Sardararam saw Manoj S/o complainant. last time with Virendra S/o Jeetaram sitting on a tractor near school and thereafter his whereabouts could not H known. She made enquiry from her relatives and also from resident of adjoining villages but Manoj still could not be traced. It is further alleged that Vikram S/o Banwari Lal, who was engaged in the business of fodder cutting, while coming back to the village on 07.07.2002, noticed bad smell from a well in village Sanwlod and informed villagers thereabout. On receiving this information, Jagdish, Vishwabhar, Lalaram, Ishwar, Dalip, Ramswaroop, Jogendra etc. went to the well and found dead body of Manoj lying therein. Telephonic information was given at Police Station Singhana. The informant stated that she had doubt that Virendra S/o Jeeta Ram and Mintu S/o Sher Singh, who threatened her of dire consequences, have committed murder of her son Manoj. 3. On receipt of aforesaid written report, a regular first information report, being F.I.R. No.202/2002, was chalked out for offence under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. During the course of investigation, Virendra and Vijay Kumar were arrested. Proceedings against accused Virendra, who was juvenile, were initiated before the Juvenile Justice Board, Jhunjhunu, and charge-sheet was filed against present accused-appellant Vijay Kumar before the court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Khetri. Since the matter was triable by the court of sessions, it was made over to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Khetri, District Jhunjhunu. 4. Learned trial court, vide its order dated 27.07.2004, framed charges against accused-appellant Vijay Kumar for offence under Sections 364 and 302 IPC and in alternative, for offence under Section 302/34 and 201 of the IPC. Accused-appellant denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution, in support of its case, produced 10 witnesses and got 16 documents exhibited. The trial court, on conclusion of trial, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant in the manner indicated above. Hence, the appeals. 5. Mr. Accused-appellant denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution, in support of its case, produced 10 witnesses and got 16 documents exhibited. The trial court, on conclusion of trial, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant in the manner indicated above. Hence, the appeals. 5. Mr. Kamlendra Sihag, learned Amicus Curiae, argued that there is no explanation why the complainant did not lodge first information report immediately after deceased went on missing from 02.07.2002. The F.I.R. was lodge belatedly only when the dead boy of Manoj was found in a well on 07.07.2002. In the written report, complainant Smt. Pista Devi alleged that it were Virendra S/o Jeetaram and Mintu S/o Sher Singh, who teased her daughter and followed her up to the house. Complainant and her son-in-law, who was also present at her house, reprimanded their act, but they threatened to kill her son and son-in-law. Accused-appellant Vijay Kumar was thus not even named in the written report, therefore, alleged motive cannot be attributed to him. 6. Learned counsel argued that as per case originally set up by the prosecution in the F.I.R. and thereafter sought to be proved in the court, there are three major circumstances against accused, namely, (1) motive, (2) last seen and (3) extra judicial confession. On the basis of written report/F.I.R., the circumstance of last seen cannot be attributed to accused-appellant. The complainant alleged that it was Ranglal S/o Sardara Ram, who saw deceased Manoj lastly with Virendra. No allegation was made therein that deceased was lastly seen with accused-appellant Vijay Kumar, inasmuch as prosecution has not produced Ranglal, who was the most important witness of last seen. Whatever complainant Pista Devi (PW-3) alleged in the F.I.R. and thereafter stated in the court statement, is thus based on what was told to her by Ranglal. Her evidence is merely based on hearsay, in the absence of Ranglal, her version cannot be held proved. 7. As regards motive, learned counsel argued that Pista Devi (PW-3) in her statement before the court, has tried to improve upon her version as to the evidence of last seen. She stated that when she went in search of her son Manoj in the night of 02.07.2002 at around 9 o’clock, Ramsingh met her on the way whom she told about missing of her son Manoj. Ramsingh assured her that he would trace him out and asked her to go home. She stated that when she went in search of her son Manoj in the night of 02.07.2002 at around 9 o’clock, Ramsingh met her on the way whom she told about missing of her son Manoj. Ramsingh assured her that he would trace him out and asked her to go home. When Ramsingh went to search Manoj, he saw Pawan, Virendra, Vijay and Manoj talking to each other in front of a school, and that Pawan and Virendra reportedly told her son Manoj that they have to drop Vijay at the well of Lalaram, Learned counsel submitted this version of complainant Pista Devi (PW-3) does not find corroboration from what has been stated by Ramsingh (PW-1), who has not stated that he went to search Manoj at the askance of Pista Devi. Had he gone to search Manoj on the request of Pista Devi, he would have definitely returned back on that very day and informed her that he saw Manoj with Vijay Kumar (accused-appellant), Virendra and Pawan, and also that Pawan and Virendra were telling Manoj that they had to drop Vijay at the well of Lalaram. Learned counsel submitted that this kind of evidence, which is otherwise not alleged against accused-appellant Vijay Kumar by complainant Pista Devi in the FIR, where she named Virendra S/o Jeetaram and Mintu S/o Sher Singh, as those who teased her daughter and followed her up to the house and threatened to kill her son and son-in-law. Mahendra Singh (PW-2) has stated that he had also gone to attend the marriage of daughter of Phoolaram Kumhar and while he was returning back he saw deceased Manoj with Vijay Kumar, Pawan and Virendra. Virendra was telling Manoj that they have to go to drop Vijay Kumar at the well of Lalaram. It is quite strange that when all these witnesses had seen Manoj with three named persons, why did they not inform her mother Pista Devi immediately thereabout. Ramsingh (PW-1), Mahendra Singh (PW-2) and also Pista Devi (PW-3) have made lot of improvement upon their original version given to the police in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and when confronted with their statement under Section 161 Cr.PC., they failed to give any satisfactory explanation. Ramsingh (PW-1), Mahendra Singh (PW-2) and also Pista Devi (PW-3) have made lot of improvement upon their original version given to the police in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and when confronted with their statement under Section 161 Cr.PC., they failed to give any satisfactory explanation. Besides, learned counsel argued that Ramsingh and Mahendra Singh have admitted that they did not inform this fact to anyone from 02.07.2002 till 07.07.2002 that they saw Manoj with the above named three persons. 8. Learned Amicus Curiae argued that Pista Devi (PW-3), in her statement, has introduced two parallel stories to substantiate the allegation of motive. While in the earlier part, she stated that deceased Manoj had seen Virendra and Pista, sister of Pawan, on the same cot in compromising position and divulged this information to his friends, which annoyed the accused. In latter part of statement, she has stated that Manoj had seen accused-appellant Vijay Kumar having sex with Santra and Sunita, mother and elder sister of Pawan. Neither of those two parts of statement of Pista Devi (PW-3) can be taken as true for want of any corroborative evidence. It is argued that the initial report (Exhibit P-9), as per Pista Devi, was written by Mahendra seven days after the missing of Manoj, whereas written report was actually submitted on 07.07.2002 i.e. five days thereafter. She has stated that neither Mahendra read over the report to her nor the S.H.O. did so. She did not remember whether she signed the report or not, but Mahendra certainly signed it. In fact, police came to their house, it is argued that there are major contradictions in what Pista Devi says and statement of Mahendra. While Pista Devi stated that Mahendra used to come to her house on every day after her son Manoj went missing on 02.07.2002, but Mahendra Singh (PW-2) has stated that he thereafter remained out of village for 3-4 days and returned back only on 07.02.2002. 9. Mr. Kamlendra Sihag, learned Amicus Curiae, further argued that another significant circumstance, which weighed with the trial court in convicting accused-appellant is extra judicial confession of co-accused Virendra made in presence of Mahendra Singh (PW-2) and Harisingh (PW-7), but these witnesses have not stated about presence of accused-appellant Vijay Kumar at the time when alleged extra judicial confession was made by Virendra. Besides, the said confession was allegedly made by co-accused Virendra even before dead body of Manoj was found. If that was so, why was there no reference of extra judicial confession in the written report submitted by informant. Harisingh (PW-7) has stated that on 07.07.2002 several persons had assembled at the house of Manoj in the village and this fact became known to everyone. Thereafter, Vikram S/o Banwari came there and informed them that smell was coming from the well of Dharamveer Jat and then Sarpanch informed the Police Station thereabout, but why this fact was not narrated in the first information report, has not been explained by the prosecution. There was no question of accused Virendra making any extra judicial confession because as per the statement of Surat Singh (PW-4), the accused absconded after the incident and were not traceable. 10. Learned counsel argued that offence of Section 364 IPC is not at all proved. There is no evidence that anyone kidnapped deceased Manoj, much less accused-appellant Vijay Kumar kidnapped him. Main prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses and their testimony, before being relied, ought to be subjected to greatest amount of circumspection. 11. Learned counsel argued that according to Section 30 of the Evidence Act, extra judicial confession of co-accused can be relied against another accused only when they are tried together. In the present case, while accused Virendra, being juvenile, was tried separately before the Juvenile Justice Board and the accused-appellant Vijay Kumar was tried in regular criminal court. Therefore, his extra judicial confession cannot be read against accused-appellant Vijay Kumar. Learned counsel, in support of his submission, has relied on judgments of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Khalid v. State Of W.B. - 2002(2) WLC (SC) Cri. 553 : (2002) 7 SCC 334 , Hardeep Singh Sohal and Others v. State of Punjab through CBI -2004(2) WLC (SC) Cri. 723 : (2004) 11 SCC 612 and State of M.P. through CBI etc. v. Paltan Mallah and Others - 2005(1) WLC (SC) Cri. 358 : AIR 2005 SC 733 . 12. Mr. Aladeen Khan, learned Public Prosecutors, and Mr. 723 : (2004) 11 SCC 612 and State of M.P. through CBI etc. v. Paltan Mallah and Others - 2005(1) WLC (SC) Cri. 358 : AIR 2005 SC 733 . 12. Mr. Aladeen Khan, learned Public Prosecutors, and Mr. Vinod Jhajharia, learned counsel for the complainant, opposed the appeals and submitted that accused-appellant has rightly been convicted as he along-with Virendra and Pawan, was lastly seen with deceased Manoj outside the house of Phoolaram Kumhar, whose daughter was getting married on that day, and deceased had gone to attend the same. Evidence of last seen has been proved by Ramsingh (PW-1), Mahendra Singh (PW-2), Manphool Singh (PW-6) and Harisingh (PW-7). Manphool Singh (PW-6), who has been declared hostile, has also proved the evidence of last seen because he too stated that he saw deceased Manoj with Virendra Singh, Pawan and accused-appellant Vijay Kumar. He further stated that Virendra asked Vijay to call Manoj and that tractor was then standing outside. Thereafter Manoj sat on the tractor and all of them went on the way leading to village Sanwlod. Element of motive is also proved against accused-appellant by overwhelming evidence especially that of Pista Devi (PW-3), who alleged that deceased Manoj had seen accused-appellant Vijay Kumar in compromising position with Santra and also Sunita, mother and elder sister of Pawan. The extra judicial confession of Virendra proves the fact that he, Pawan and Vijay Kumar decided to liquidate Manoj so that the factum of illicit relations of Vijay with Santra and Sunita would not be spread further and therefore they took Manoj to the well of Dharamveer and killed him. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that minor discrepancies/contradictions in statements of prosecution witnesses is quite natural. Such omissions/contradictions cannot be a reason to discard the entire prosecution case. Present appeals therefore deserve to be dismissed. 13. We have given our anxious consideration to rival submissions and perused the material on record. 14. There are basically three circumstances, which have been relied on by learned trial court to hold the accused-appellant guilty of alleged offences, namely, (1) motive, (2) last seen, and (3) extrajudicial confession. 15. Present appeals therefore deserve to be dismissed. 13. We have given our anxious consideration to rival submissions and perused the material on record. 14. There are basically three circumstances, which have been relied on by learned trial court to hold the accused-appellant guilty of alleged offences, namely, (1) motive, (2) last seen, and (3) extrajudicial confession. 15. Pista Devi (PW-3) in the written report/F.I.R., has alleged that it was Ranglal, who first of all informed her that Manoj was lastly seen with Virendra on a tractor, but neither name of accused-appellant Vijay Kumar was mentioned in the F.I.R., nor Ranglal was produced by the prosecution as a witness. Withholding of Ranglal by the prosecution and not producing him in witness box to prove motive is fatal to the prosecution case because it was he, who according to the informant, first of all disclosed the aforesaid fact to her. But then the factum of last seen, even if examined on the basis of other evidence, becomes quite suspicious. Pista Devi (PW-3) has stated that she made frantic search for her missing son Manoj in the night of 02.07.2002 itself. While Pista Devi also alleged that when she went in search of Manoj at around 9.00 PM on 02.07.2002 itself, Ramsingh met her on the way and assured that he would trace him out and bring him back to her house. Then Ramsingh told that story about Manoj being seen with afore-named three persons and that Pawan and Virendra were telling Manoj that they had to o drop Vijay at the well of Lalaram but Ramsingh, in his statement, does not say that Pista Devi requested him on 02.07.2002 to search for her missing son Manoj. Pista Devi (PW-3) has not made any reference in her written report about the conversation which she had with Ramsingh on 02.07.2002. Ramsingh (PW-1), Mahendra Singh (PW-2) and Harisingh (PW- 7) have alleged that they went to attend the wedding ceremony of daughter of Phoolaram Kumhar. When they were returning back therefrom, they saw accused Vijay Kumar, Virendra and deceased Manoj with Pawan talking to each other. Virendra was saying that they have to drop Vijay at the well of Lalaram. Ramsingh (PW-1), Mahendra Singh (PW-2) and Harisingh (PW- 7) have alleged that they went to attend the wedding ceremony of daughter of Phoolaram Kumhar. When they were returning back therefrom, they saw accused Vijay Kumar, Virendra and deceased Manoj with Pawan talking to each other. Virendra was saying that they have to drop Vijay at the well of Lalaram. None of these three persons have said that when Manoj was seen in the company of afore-mentioned three persons, why did they not disclose this fact to Pista Devi and why did Pista Devi, or for that matter, anyone of these three persons, not approach the police immediately when admittedly search for missing son of the informant was on for as long as five days. 16. Coming now to the motive alleged against accused-appellant, first of all the motive that was disclosed in the F.I.R. was entirely different, where she alleged that Virendra and Mintu were teasing her daughter Nitu when she went out of home to purchase watermelon. They followed her up to the house when she returned back. She told Pista Devi and her son-in-law Ummed about this. When they asked the accused not to do so, Virendra and Mintu threatened the complainant that they would murder her son and son-in-law within ten days. Second page of the written report indicates that after it was signed by Pista Devi, an additional para was added at its bottom in the terms that the complainant believed that it was owing to the aforesaid threat that accused Virendra and Mintu must have murdered her son Manoj. The police has not filed any charge-sheet against Mintu and even not produced Ummed, son-in-law of Pista Devi, in the witness box. Moreover, Pista Devi, in her statement before the court, introduced an entirely different motive. As per her that version, first part of motive is directed against co-accused Virendra, in that Manoj had seen him in compromising position with younger sister of Pawan, also named Pista, on the same cot. Second part of motive is directed against accused-appellant Vijay, in that Manoj had seen him having “ganda-kaam” (sex) with Santra and also Sunita, who are mother and elder sister of Pawan. Second part of motive is directed against accused-appellant Vijay, in that Manoj had seen him having “ganda-kaam” (sex) with Santra and also Sunita, who are mother and elder sister of Pawan. Then Virendra, Pawan, Vijay and Santra decided to liquidate Manoj 25 so that the factum of illicit relations of Vijay with Santra and Sunita would not be divulged any further and therefore they took Manoj to the well of Dharamveer and killed him. 17. While the evidence of either ’motive’ or ’last seen’, by itself, is a weak nature of evidence and cannot be made sole basis of conviction, although it may be taken as additional circumstance to lend credence to the evidence of the prosecution otherwise on record, which, in the present case, is the evidence of ’extra judicial confession’. Even then, we, on analysing the evidence aforesaid, found that evidence of ’last seen’ against accused-appellant Vijay Kumar is quite sketchy, as the first version given by Pista Devi in the written report (Exhibit P-9) does not mention as to evidence of last seen against accused-appellant Vijay Kumar but only states about Virendra being seen in the company of deceased and that too with the additional version that this was informed to her by Ranglal and Ranglal has not been produced by the prosecution, which is an important lapse on its part. Besides, three other witnesses of last seen, namely, Ramsingh (PW-1), Mahendra Singh (PW-2) and Harisingh (PW-7) and even the fourth person Manphool Singh (PW-6), who turned hostile, have stated having lastly seen the deceased in the company of accused-appellant and two others, but no explanation is forth coming from any one of them that why when complainant Pista Devi (PW-3) was making frantic search for her missing son in the night of 02.07.2002 itself not only in adjoining houses of their relatives but also in nearby villages, they did not inform her about this. Had this been so, she would have definitely approached the police immediately and further that had Pista Devi known so, this fact would definitely find mention in the written report/FIR. 18. Coming lastly to the evidence of extra judicial confession, it is trite that confession, or for that matter, extra judicial confession of an accused, is not evidence in the ordinary sense of the term as defined in Section 3 of the Evidence Act. 18. Coming lastly to the evidence of extra judicial confession, it is trite that confession, or for that matter, extra judicial confession of an accused, is not evidence in the ordinary sense of the term as defined in Section 3 of the Evidence Act. It cannot be made the foundation of a conviction but can be used only in support of other evidence, as held by the Supreme Court in Kashmira Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh - AIR 1952 SC 159 . The proper way is to first marshal the evidence against the accused excluding the confession altogether from consideration arid see whether, if it is believed, could a conviction be safely based on it. If it is capable of belief independently of the confession, then of course it is not necessary to call the confession in aid. But, cases may arise where the Judge is not prepared to act on the other evidence as it stands even though, if believed, it would be sufficient to sustain a conviction. In such an event the Judge may call in aid the confession and use it to lend assurance to the other evidence and thus fortify himself in believing what without the aid of the confession he would not be prepared to accept. But, the position of confession of co-accused is circumscribed by the conditions incorporated in Section 30 of the Evidence Act, condition precedent of which is that confession of one accused against another could be relied only if both are being tried jointly for the same offence. 19. In the present case co-accused Virendra, whose extra judicial confession has been relied by the trial court against present accused-appellant Vijay, is certainly not being tried jointly with accused-appellant Vijay Kumar, and that he has been subjected to trial before the Juvenile Justice Board. Such were also the facts in a case before the Bombay High Court in Shivaji Vithal Godse v. The State of Maharashtra -2012 BomCR (Cri) 550, wherein extra judicial confession of co-accused, a juvenile offender, who was not tried with other accused in regular sessions court, was not held admissible against them. Such were also the facts in a case before the Bombay High Court in Shivaji Vithal Godse v. The State of Maharashtra -2012 BomCR (Cri) 550, wherein extra judicial confession of co-accused, a juvenile offender, who was not tried with other accused in regular sessions court, was not held admissible against them. Similar was the position in Mansur Ali v. State, a judgment delivered by the High Court of Madras (Madurai Bench), where confession of juvenile accused made to the police, who was being tried separately before Juvenile Justice Board, was, in view of Section 30 of the Evidence Act, held to be not admissible against other two co-accused, tried in regular court. 20. Section 30 of the Evidence Act makes admissibility of confession or even extra judicial confession of co-accused subject to fulfilment of various conditions, namely, (i) more persons than one are being tried jointly; (ii) joint trial of the accused-persons for the same offence; (iii) confession is made by one of such persons, who are being tried jointly for the same offence; (iv) such confession may affect maker and some other of such persons, who are being tried jointly for the same offence; (v) if such a confession is proved in court, then only the court may take into consideration such confession against the maker as well as against such other persons, who are being tried jointly for same offence. 21. In Bhuboni Sahu v. The King - AIR 1949 PC 257 , the Privy Council has observed that “a confession of a co-accused is obviously evidence of a very weak type. It does not indeed come within the definition of "evidence" contained in Section 3 of the Evidence Act. It is not required to be given on oath, nor in the presence of the accused, and it cannot be tested by cross-examination. It is a much weaker type of evidence than the evidence of an approver, which is not subject to any of those infirmities. Section 30, however, provides that the Court may take the confession into consideration and thereby, no doubt, makes it evidence on which the court may act; but the section does not say that the confession is to amount to proof. Clearly, there must be other evidence. Section 30, however, provides that the Court may take the confession into consideration and thereby, no doubt, makes it evidence on which the court may act; but the section does not say that the confession is to amount to proof. Clearly, there must be other evidence. The confession is only one element in the consideration of all the facts proved in the case, it can be put into the scale and weighed with the other evidence." This judgment was followed by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar - AIR 1964 SC 1184 , which was dealing with Sections 3 and 30 of the Evidence Act, and held that as a result of the provisions contained in Section; 30 of the Evidence Act, the confession of a co-accused has to be regarded as amounting to evidence in a general way, because whatever is considered by the Court is evidence; circumstances which are considered by the Court as well as probabilities do amount to evidence in that generic sense. Where the prosecution relies upon the confession of one accused person against another accused person, the proper approach to adopt is to consider the other evidence against such an accused person, and if the said evidence appears to be satisfactory and the court is inclined to hold that the said evidence may sustain the charge framed against the said accused person, the court turns to the confession with a view to assure itself that the conclusion which it is inclined to draw from the other evidence is right. As regards the value of confession of a co-accused, their Lordships further held that 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 conviction or grave suspicion. 22. In Hardeep Singh Sohal, supra, a judgment directly on the point, the Supreme Court was dealing with a case where joint charge-sheet was filed against various accused persons, one of them escaped from custody and was declared proclaimed offender and later killed in an allegedly fake encounter by the police. 22. In Hardeep Singh Sohal, supra, a judgment directly on the point, the Supreme Court was dealing with a case where joint charge-sheet was filed against various accused persons, one of them escaped from custody and was declared proclaimed offender and later killed in an allegedly fake encounter by the police. The extra judicial confession made by such accused was held to be not admissible against remaining accused by the reason of Section 30 of the Evidence Act that the said absconding co-accused was not tried along-with them. The Supreme Court in Mohd. Khalid, supra, held that evidence of co-accused cannot be considered under Section 30 of the Evidence Act where he was not tried jointly with the accused and where he did not make a statement incriminating himself along with the accused. As noted above, the confession of co-accused does not come within the definition of evidence contained in Section 3 of the Evidence Act. 23. In criminal cases 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. In view of above, even the extra judicial confession of co-accused Virendra, who has been tried separately before the Juvenile Justice Board, cannot be read against co-accused, appellant Vijay Kumar herein. 24. It is trite that in a case of circumstantial evidence there must be complete chain of evidence which should lead to conclusion that the accused was the only person, who could have committed offence and none else. Each of circumstances that is proved against the accused should form a chain so complete so as to rule out every other hypothesis, which may be compatible with innocence of the accused. Each of circumstances that is proved against the accused should form a chain so complete so as to rule out every other hypothesis, which may be compatible with innocence of the accused. Apart from the fact that extra judicial confession of juvenile co-accused cannot be read against accused-appellant Vijay Kumar, analysis of the evidence that we have made above also makes it evident that there are several missing finks in the chain of circumstances, which cannot be accepted to be so complete as to point out to guilt of the accused and none else and which also does not rule out every single possibility of accused being innocent and not the real culprit. 25. In view of above discussion, the present appeals succeed and are hereby allowed. The impugned judgment dated 02.04.2007 convicting the accused-appellant for offence under Sections 364, 302/34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside. Accused-appellant Vijay Kumar is acquitted of all the charges. He is in jail for last more than ten years. If not required to be detained in connection with any other offence, he may be released forthwith. 26. Keeping, however, in view of the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, appellant Vijay Kumar is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/-, and a surety bond in the like amount, before the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months, undertaking that in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment or on grant of leave, the appellant, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court. Appeal Allowed-Accused to Execute Bond and Security for Rs. 20,000/- For his presence Before Supreme Court if Appeal be filed Against Judgment.