The main legal point established is that a co-accused's statement alone is not sufficient to frame charges, and there must be other evidence to establish guilt.

1. - This criminal revision petition was filed by two accused-petitioners-Rambalirajgar and Kamla Prasad to quash the charges framed against them for offences under section 302 r/w Section 120-B IPC. It may be stated that Rambalirajgar has expired and it is admitted position by both the parties, therefore, no order is required to be passed on his petition. However, I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner-Kamla Prasad and learned counsel for the C.B.I.

2. Briefly stated, on the basis of a parcha Bayan of Govind Ram dated 6.7.1979, a case under section 307 IPC was registered at Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur. This Parcha Bayan stated that Govind Ram was a Chowkidar and was on duty from 6.00 p.m. to 12 O'clock in the night. At about 9.00 p.m. he heard noise of some 4 or 5 fires from the side of Takhte Shahi Road, Jaipur. Then he saw a crowd of labourers near the building of Reserve Bank of India which was under construction. He did not go there. However, police came then he went and found that a person was lying in injured condition. The injured person was lying unconscious due to the injuries caused by fires. He was S.N. Das Gupta, an officer of the Customs Department. The person who was injured later on died. It was the C.B.I. who investigated the case and submitted challan. Accused-petitioner was charged under section 302 with the aid of Section 120 B IPC by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur by order dated 17.8.1995 and the order was challenged by this revision petition.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner-Kamla Prasad submitted that originally charge-sheet was not filed against the petitioner and that this petitioner has been charged on the basis of a confessional statement of co-accused recorded by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, S.P.E. Cases, Jaipur named Sarabjeet Singh. Learned counsel submitted that there is no evidence of conspiracy that the accused-petitioner could not have been charged on the basis of statement of co-accused and that the petitioner may be discharged.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for C.B.I. submitted that charge could be framed on the basis of statement of Sarabjeet Singh as he inculpated himself and that the prosecution has examined 17 witnesses in this case and now the petition should be dismissed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Rathore cited State of U.P. v. Sukhbasi & Ors., AIR 1985 SC 1224 to show as to what type of evidence should be there to make out an offence under section 120-B IPC. In this citation, it has been held to substantiate a charge u /s. 120-B of the Indian Pedal Code, there must be a criminal conspiracy at least between two or more persons. He also drew my attention to Section 10 of the Evidence Act which provides that where there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an offence or an actionable wrong, anything said, done or written by any one of such persons in reference to their common intention, after the time when such intention was first entertained by any one of them, is a relevant fact as against each of the persons believed to so conspiring, as well for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy as for the purpose of showing that any such person was a party to it. Mr. Rathore submitted that there was no such evidence in this case and there was only the statement of co-accused-Sarabjeet Singh in which in reply to question No. 60, he stated as follows :

"fueZy us gesa dgk gS fd mn;jkt HkS;k tsy esa cUn gks x;s vkSj vHkh ih0th0 vLirky esa HkrhZ gks x;s vkSj mn;jkt us deyk izlkn o cYyh mQZ cfy;k dks dg fn;k gS fd og gesa ,d yk[k :i;k nsxkA fQj dgk fd deyk izlkn o cYyh mQZ vfy;k nksuksa ,d&,d yk[k :i;k gesa nsxsA vkSj fueZy us dgk fd og nks yk[k :i;k eq>s fey x;k gs vkSj viuh ikWapksa feydj nks xkM+h [kjhnsxsa vkSj V~kUliksVZ dk /kU/kk djsaxsA"

6. According to Mr. Rathore, statement of co-accused cannot be read against the petitioner on the