of FIR)] made by him to the police on 20th May, 1990 and gave a detailed account of the sequence of events witnessed by him. The complainant Ashok Kumar Pathak could not be examined in the trial proceedings post arrest of the accused as he 7could not be found at the address given in the FIR despite all sincere efforts. 13. The trial Court held that since Ashok Kumar Pathak could not be located despite genuine efforts, his sworn deposition recorded in absence of the accused appellant was liable to be read in evidence as per the provisions of Section 299 CrPC. Accordingly, the said statement was relied upon as a piece of incriminating evidence against the accused appellant. 14. The trial Court also placed reliance on the confession note/letter(Exhibit PW-12/E) holding that the same was found to be in the handwriting of the accused appellant by the handwriting expert(PW-24) vide report(Exhibit PW-12/F). The said confession was treated to be an admission and a strong link of incriminating