11. Reverting to the first incriminating circumstance that the towel of appellant was found wrapped in the dead body of deceased, it is appropriate to mention here that the dead body along-with towel was not recovered pursuant to memorandum statement of the appellant, but it has been recovered as noted in the dehalti merg intimation (Ex.P-5), as per the statement made by Rai Singh (PW-4) that he along-with villagers were searching his son and during that period on 01.07.2016, they saw the dead body of his son floating in the water of well situated in the agriculture field of Rajendra Gupta and when the dead body was taken out, in which, towel was found, which was said to be of appellant. The towel was alleged to have been identified by the appellant also vide Ex.P-3 in presence of police officer and therefore such confessional statement is hit by Sections 25 & 26 of the Indian Evidence Act. Even otherwise, the towel was not of such special quality, which was not easily available in the local market and therefore, on that basis, conviction cannot be maintained. Furthermore, the CDR of mobile numbers (Exs.10A to 10C), which establishes that there was conversation took place between deceased’s mother and appellant, but no inference can be drawn on that basis
