S.K. Gupta, J.

1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 18.2.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ganj Basoda, Distt. Vidisha, in Sessions Trial No. 182/2011 framing charges under Sections 302 read with Section 120-Band 302 read with Section 109 of IPC, the petitioner has preferred this Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C.

2. The brief facts of the case in short are that a report was lodged by complainant Tarachand Ahirwar to the effect that he alongwith Shivdayal and Sanjeev Jain was sitting at Dharmkanta. Suddenly at about 11.15 pm. Sanjeev Jain, on the call of some unknown person, went outside and after about two minutes when the complainant heard some sound, he went outside and found that Sanjeev Jain was sitting awkwardly outside and two persons after starting their motorcycle run away. Thereafter, he alongwith others took Sanjeev Jain to hospital where doctor declared him dead. Firearm marks were visible at left side of rib and neck. On the report, FIR at Crime No. 1073/10 was registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC at police Station Basoda, Distt. Vidisha and investigation was conducted. During investigation, statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. were recorded and postmortem of the deceased was conducted. On the basis of aforesaid statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. arrest of the co-accused was made by the police and thereafter on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused Gudda Banjara @ Saiyyad Aziz Ali and recovery of revolver of petitioner, which was used in the murder of Sanjeev Jain, the petitioner was made accused in the matter. After completion of the investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet under Sections 302, 201, 120-B, 34of IPC and Sections 25, 27 and 30 of the Arms Act before the committal Court which committed the case to the Court of Session. Thereafter, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Basoda, Distt. Vidisha, vide impugned order has framed the charges as aforesaid against the petitioner. Hence, this revision.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that entire story put forth by the prosecution is based only on the sole confessional statement of co-accused Gudda Banjara @ Saiyyad Aziz Ali which was recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that no other witness has deposed anything against the petitioner/accused to connect him with the aforesaid offence. Learned counsel further submitted that there is no other evidence available on record to involve the petitioner/accused with the alleged charged offences. He further submitted that petitioner is not named in the FIR, even he was not present on the spot. In continuation, it is also submitted that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case only on the basis of memorandum of co-accused Gudda Banjara @ Saiyyad Aziz Ali and that is not admissible in evidence against co-accused/petitioner and on the basis of the statement of co-accused, recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the petitioner cannot be convicted. Therefore, prima facie there is no iota of evidence available against the petitioner/accused. In support of the submissions advanced, learned counsel placed reliance on Dhan Raj Alias Dhand v. State of Haryana, (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 126; Raghu Thakur v. State of M.P., 2012 (4) M.P.H.T. 116; Bhoorelal v. State of M.P., 2008 (2) M.P.L.J. (Cri.) 271; Dilawar Balu Kurane v. State of Maharashtra, 2002 SCC (Cri) 310 and Sushil Kumar Sharma v. State of M.P., MPWN 1995 (I) 248.

4. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the State and learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that there is ample evidence available on record against the petitioner for his involvement in the alleged offence. They further submitted that petitioner has not been made accused only on the ba