Waller, J.

1. I agree that Exhibit G is a statement that should not have been taken into consideration against the 1st accused. He and the maker of the statement were being jointly tried for murder and Exhibit G was not a confession of murder jointly affecting both. The law on the point was correctly laid down by Straight, ]., many years ago in the Allahabad case Empress of India v. Ganraj (1879) I.L.R. 2 A. 444 cited by my learned brother. As regards the case Shivabhai v. Emperor (1926) I.L.R. 50 B. 683 a statement by one of the accused that he by himself had burnt the clothes of a murdered man and would show the place was treated as a confession of participation in the murder and admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act against him. To that extent, the decision seems to be correct, but when it goes on to put forward some circumstantial grounds on which the Judges held that the confession "indirectly affected" another accused not named in it and could, therefore, be vised against him under Section 30 of the Evidence Act, I find myself wholly unable to follow it.

2. Apart from the so-called confession, there is, I think, a strong circumstantial case against the 1st app