JUDGMENT SANDEEP MEHTA, J. 1. The appellant stands convicted and sentenced as below vide the judgment dated 30.09.2015 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, Nagaur in Sessions Case No.50/15 (189/11) (55/14). 304-B IPC Life Imprisonment 498-A IPC Two Years' SI and fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' SI. 201 IPC Two Years' SI and fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' SI. 2. Being aggrieved of his conviction and sentences, he has preferred the instant appeal under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. The facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant appeal, are noted hereinbelow. Facts in brief: 3. The appellant herein was married with the deceased Samdu in August, 2011. Smt. Samdu had gone to her father's house (Nathuram, complainant) on the occasion of Rakhi. She went missing upon which Shri Nathuram lodged a Missing Person Report ('MPR') (Ex.D/1) on 28.08.2011 at Police Station Khinvsar inter alia alleging that on 26.08.2011 in the evening at 7:30, while he and his family members were taking dinner, Samdu went out from the home without informing anyone and was missing thereafter. She had been married to Shri Sharvan Ram S/o Shri Champaram by Caste Nayak and had been going to her matrimonial home for the last two years. She had a mobile phone bearing No.8890432039. Soon before her disappearance, she was overheard talking to someone with this phone. Thereafter, she secretly went out of the house. After Samdu went missing, the complainant and the members of his family made inquiries with various paternal relatives as well as her matrimonial relatives but there was no clue of her whereabouts. On 27.08.2011 also, the first informant continued to search for Samdu but he could not succeed. It was categorically mentioned in the report that Samdu was having no dispute with anyone either in the matrimonial home or at her Pihar. The statement of Nathuram was recorded in connection with the MPR on 28.08.2011 itself wherein he verbatim repeated the averments made in the MPR. However, Samdu could not be traced out for about ten days. 4. Shri Nathuram lodged a detailed report with the SHO PS Khinvsar on 05.09.2011 alleging therein that Samdu had been married to Shri Sharvan Ram S/o Shri Champa Ram (the appellant herein) about two and half years ago. However, Samdu could not be traced out for about ten days. 4. Shri Nathuram lodged a detailed report with the SHO PS Khinvsar on 05.09.2011 alleging therein that Samdu had been married to Shri Sharvan Ram S/o Shri Champa Ram (the appellant herein) about two and half years ago. The informant had given significant dowry in the marriage as per his capability. However, whenever Samdu came to his house after the marriage, she complained that her husband was threatening to kill her on account of demand of dowry and was sniding that he would remarry. Samdu came to his house on the occasion of Rakhi. On 26.08.2011 at about 8 to 9 PM, her husband Sharvan Ram came outside his house and called Samdu on her phone. Smt. Samdu intimated her mother that her husband was calling and thereafter she left the house but did not return. They made search for her whereabouts. On the next morning, they went to Tadwas and made an inquiry from Sharvan Ram who admitted that Samdu had accompanied him to Tadwas on the previous night but thereafter she sneaked away surreptitiously. When Samdu could not be traced out despite all efforts, the first informant alongwith PW-3 Arjunram, PW-5 Jagram and PW-6 Paburam, confronted Sharvan Ram under the oath of God, upon which he confessed that he and his four-five friends conspired together and had murdered Samdu. The informant alleged in the report that these facts could be verified from the call details and that requisite action should be taken against Sharvan Ram and his companions. On the basis of this complaint, an FIR No.135/2011 was registered at Police Station Khinvsar for offences under Sections 498A, 406, 304B and 201 IPC. The investigation was assigned to the CO, SC/ST Cell, Nagaur because the case involved the disappearance and suspected dowry death of a girl belonging to SC community. The CO recorded the statement of Nathuram under Section 161 CrPC on 05.09.2011 itself wherein Nathuram repeated allegations levelled in the FIR and additionally stated that his daughter's Muklawa was held two years ago and whenever she came to the parental home, she would complain of maltreatment by the husband owing to demand of money etc. She also complained that her husband used to threaten her that she would be killed and he would re-marry. She also complained that her husband used to threaten her that she would be killed and he would re-marry. It was further alleged in the statement that when the informant, Paburam, Arjun Ram and Jagram questioned Sharvan Ram streneously and put him under oath, he broke down and confessed that he had throttled Samdu to death and disposed off her dead body by throwing it in the water tank. The statements of Arjun Ram & Budharam were recorded by the Dy.SP, SC/ST Cell, Nagaur on 06.09.2011 wherein they alleged that on 04.09.2011 four of them (Arjun Ram, Pabu Ram, Jagram and Nathu Ram) met and confronted Sharvan Ram at Nagaur. They put him under the oath of God and Ramdevji and asked him the truth of the matter on which Sharvan Ram confessed that Samdu was not to his liking. He wanted to get rid of her and thus, he took her from Ahmedupra to Dodiyana Phanta on a motorcycle and after having throttled her to death behind the old temple, he threw the dead body in the water tank nearby. The Investigating officer proceeded to arrest the accused appellant on 05.09.2011 at 12:30 pm vide arrest memo Ex.P/13. It is alleged that the accused gave a voluntary information at 12:45 pm to the IO under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act which was recorded in memorandum Ex.P/21, in which the accused allegedly conveyed to the Investigating Officer that he had killed his wife on 26.08.2011 in the evening and had disposed of the dead body in a water tank behind the old temple near the Dodiyal Phanta and that he could get the same recovered. The IO thereafter proceeded to Dodiyal Phanta and allegedly got recovered the decomposed dead body of a female which was identified by Shri Nathuram to be that of Samdu. Significantly enough, the IO did not prepare any recovery memo of the dead body but mentioned the details of recovery in the Fard Surathal Lash (Ex.P/3). Be that as it may. After the dead body had been recovered, the IO proceeded to record yet another information of the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act (Ex.P/22) and recovered a pair of Payzeb alleged to be of deceased Samdu. Be that as it may. After the dead body had been recovered, the IO proceeded to record yet another information of the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act (Ex.P/22) and recovered a pair of Payzeb alleged to be of deceased Samdu. Based on these links of circumstantial and the so-called direct evidence collected during investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused appellant before the Magistrate concerned for the offences under Sections 498A, 304B IPC in the alternative 302 and 201 of IPC. 5. Since the offences were sessions triable, the case was committed to the Addl. Sessions Judge, Nagaur who framed charges against the accused appellant for these offences. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses in support of its case. In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused was confronted with the circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence. He denied the same and claimed to be innocent. However, no evidence was led in defence. After appreciating the submissions advanced at bar and evaluating and sifting the evidence available on record, the trial court proceeded to pass the impugned judgment dated 30.09.2015 wherein apparently, no finding was recorded on the charge framed against the accused for offence under Section 302 IPC but at the same time, the trial court proceeded to convict the accused appellant for the offences under Sections 498A, 304B and 201 IPC and sentenced him as above. Being aggrieved of the above judgment, the accused appellant has preferred the instant appeal. 6. Learned Counsel Shri Mukesh Mehriya representing the appellant vehemently and fervently contended that there hardly was evidence worth the name on the record of the case so as to connect the appellant with the unnatural homicidal death of Smt. Samdu. He urged that the Missing Person Report which was lodged soon after Samdu went untraceable, provides strongest proof regarding the innocence of the accused appellant. He contended that Smt. Samdu disappeared on the evening of 26.08.2011 while she was at her father's house. The Missing Person Report was lodged by Nathu Ram on 27.08.2011. As per Shri Mehriya, had Smt. Samdu ever made any complaint of misbehaviour on account of demand of dowry or for any other reason against the appellant, her father Nathu Ram would not have given an affirmative clean chit to the appellant while lodging the MPR. The Missing Person Report was lodged by Nathu Ram on 27.08.2011. As per Shri Mehriya, had Smt. Samdu ever made any complaint of misbehaviour on account of demand of dowry or for any other reason against the appellant, her father Nathu Ram would not have given an affirmative clean chit to the appellant while lodging the MPR. He drew the Court's attention towards the written complaint Ex.P/2 lodged by Shri Nathu Ram on 05.09.2011 and urged that in such a complaint also which was lodged after the appellant allegedly made an extrajudicial confession, there is no such aspersion that MPR in exculpatory terms was instigated by the appellant herein. He contended that ex-facie, the proceedings of recovery of dead body of Samdu allegedly made at the instance of the accused by Gopalram Ramawat, CO Nagaur being the IO of the case are totally fabricated and concocted. In this regard, he drew the court's attention to the statements of the witnesses PW- 2 Nathuram, PW-3 Arjun Ram and PW-8 Budharam and urged that from the evidence of these witnesses, it is clearly elicited that the accused made a confession upon being pressurized by the police officials disclosing whereabouts of the dead body on 04.09.2011 itself in presence of these witnesses and the police officials and thus, the fact as to where the dead body was lying, was definitely in the knowledge of the Investigating Officer. Thus, as per Shri Mehriya, proceeding involving recovery of the dead body made at the instance of the accused appellant are fabricated and tainted. He contended that the theory putforth by the prosecution witnesses regarding the alleged demand of dowry and harassment meted out on that account by the accused appellant to the deceased is totally false and fabricated. He took us through the statement of PW-2 Nathuram, the father of the girl in which he admitted that Samdu never complained to him that she had been maltreated in her matrimonial home and admitted that all complaints in this regard had been made by the girl to her mother. He also referred to the statement of the girl's mother Smt. Munni Devi (PW/7) wherein no particular/specific allegations have been attributed to the appellant regarding the items demanded by the appellant from Samdu as dowry or otherwise. He also referred to the statement of the girl's mother Smt. Munni Devi (PW/7) wherein no particular/specific allegations have been attributed to the appellant regarding the items demanded by the appellant from Samdu as dowry or otherwise. As per Shri Mehriya, the IO Shri Gopa Ramawat intentionally did not place on record the call details of the mobile phone held by the deceased whereby the identity of the actual offender could have been pinpointed. As per him, these call details were the prime evidence required to establish and clinch the identity of the person with whom Samdu had gone away. As per him, even the first informant gave much significance to this mobile conversation while filing the report and in his deposition as well claiming that the same were vital to find out the offender. As per him, the intentional omission of the Investigating Officer/Prosecution in failing to bring on record these call details is fatal to the prosecution case. He further urged that the trial court did not hold the appellant guilty for the charge under Section 302 IPC. As per him, there is no evidence whatsoever on the record of the case to satisfy the Court beyond all shadows of doubt that the appellant herein harassed or maltreated the deceased Samdu on account of demand of dowry soon before her death and thus, as per him, conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 304B IPC cannot be sustained. On these grounds, he implored the Court to accept the appeal and set aside the appellant's conviction while over-turning the impugned judgment. 7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced at bar by appellant's Counsel. He urged that the Missing Person Report was undoubtedly instigated and drafted at the instance of appellant in such a manner so that the finger of suspicion would be diverted from him. He further urged that once the prosecution was able to prove and establish that the appellant was the person who disposed of the dead body of Smt. Samdu in the water tank, the burden to prove and explain as to how the dead body with distinct marks of violent death by throttling came to be in the water tank, shifted on to the appellant. The appellant miserably failed to discharge this burden and thus, as per him, he is liable to be held guilty for the charge of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC by raising the presumptions available under Sections 106 and 114 of the Evidence Act. He relied upon the Division Bench judgment in the case of Sher Singh vs State of Rajasthan (D.B.Criminal Appeal No.1134/2009 decided on 01.09.2016) and urged that since an alternate charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against the accused appellant by the trial court; the prosecution witnesses gave positive evidence in support of the charge and since the accused while being questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; was confronted with all such circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, manifestly, he understood the same without any ambiguity and hence, this Court is empowered to exercise jurisdiction conferred upon it by Section 386 IPC and record conviction of the appellant for the appropriate charge i.e., Section 302 IPC. He thus implored the Court to dismiss the appeal with this modification in the impugned judgment. 8. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have perused the impugned judgment and have threadbare sifted through the evidence available on record. 9. The following facts are admitted from the prosecution evidence and do not require any further deliberation or re-appreciation:- 1. That marriage of deceased Samdu with the appellant Sharvan Ram was solemnized about two and half years before the incident. 2. That the deceased Samdu was at her father's house at the fateful day as she had come there on the occasion of Rakhi 3. That Smt. Samdu was carrying a mobile phone bearing No.8890432039 with her. 4. That she had a conversation with someone before she went away from her father's house in the late hours of 26.08.2011. The prosecution/investigation agency failed to bring on record the corresponding call details. 5. That the MPR (Ex.D/1) was lodged by Shri Nathuram wherein there is positive assertion that the deceased was never harassed at the matrimonial home for any reason whatsoever. 6. That the accused allegedly made an extrajudicial confession in presence of Nathuram, Arjunram, Budhram and Jagram on 04.09.2011 i.e., well before the FIR (Ex.P/2) came to be lodged by Shri Nathuram at PS Khinvsar. 6. That the accused allegedly made an extrajudicial confession in presence of Nathuram, Arjunram, Budhram and Jagram on 04.09.2011 i.e., well before the FIR (Ex.P/2) came to be lodged by Shri Nathuram at PS Khinvsar. In such confession, he divulged that he had disposed of the dead body of Samdu in the water tank behind the temple. 7. Despite this disclosure, the close family members made no efforts to recover the body. 10. Having noted the significant uncontroverted facts of the case in the above terms, we now proceed to appreciate the evidence of prosecution witnesses. 11. Pw-2 Nathuram claimed in his testimony that he had given dowry as per his capability during the marriage of Samdu with the appellant. The witness stated that whenever Samdu came to his house, she would complain that her husband used to insinuate that he would kill her. He however, conceded in cross-examination that the complaints regarding the alleged demand of dowry were made by Samdu not to him but to her mother Smt. Munni Devi (PW-7). On the fateful day i.e. 26.08.2011, the appellant allegedly came outside his house and called Samdu on her phone. Smt. Samdu told her mother that her husband was calling her and thereafter she left the house. The witness admitted in his cross-examination that he did not see the accused appellant Sharvan Ram outside his house on that day. In this context, the evidence of PW-7 Smt. Munni Devi, being the mother of the girl is very relevant. In her statement, the witness claimed that the accused called Samdu out of the house who told her that she was going out and would return shortly. The witness did not pay much heed thinking that her daughter had gone with her husband. However, if the version of these witnesses is tested on the anvil of the Missing Person report (Ex.D/2) it becomes clear that in this report, there is a categoric disclosure that Samdu had a mobile conversation with some unknown person and then went away secretly. There is a clear statement in the missing person report that Samdu was never harassed or humiliated in the matrimonial home on any account whatsoever. 12. Though of-course, Nathu Ram has tried to portray that the MPR was instituted in a particular manner at the instance of accused appellant but we do not feel inclined to accept the said allegation. There is a clear statement in the missing person report that Samdu was never harassed or humiliated in the matrimonial home on any account whatsoever. 12. Though of-course, Nathu Ram has tried to portray that the MPR was instituted in a particular manner at the instance of accused appellant but we do not feel inclined to accept the said allegation. There is strong reason for coming to this conclusion. Had there been an iota of truth in this allegation of Shri Nathu Ram that the MPR was stage-managed by the accused appellant then he would definitely have mentioned this fact while drafting the FIR (Ex.P/2) which was filed as late as on 05.09.2011. 13. As per the admitted prosecution case, the accused had made the extra-judicial confession on 04.09.2011 in presence of Nathu Ram/PW.3, Arjun Ram/P.W.4, Jagram/P.W.6 and Budhram/P.W.9, that he had killed Smt. Samdu and disposed of the dead body in the water tank. Thus, the omission of this important fact in the FIR (Ex.P/2) that the MPR (Ex.D/2) was drafted in a particular manner at the instance of the accused appellant so that he could avoid bringing suspicion from himself is not far too significant so as to be over-looked. 14. It is also an admitted case of prosecution that the deceased was having a mobile phone with her, number whereof was mentioned in the MPR. Thus, the the best evidence to support this allegation would have been to collect the call details of the mobile phone held by the deceased Smt. Samdu. In backdrop of these facts, the significant omission in the FIR (Ex.P/2) regarding the fact that the MPR was stage managed by the accused makes the aspersion cast to this effect by Shri Nathu Ram in his sworn testimony totally unacceptable and unworthy of credence. 15. As we have concluded that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses regarding the accused having managed the MPR is unacceptable and since the call details of the mobile phone in use of the deceased were deliberately withheld by the prosecution, the allegation of the prosecution witnesses i.e. PW-2 Nathu Ram and PW-7 Smt. Munni Devi that the appellant called Samdu out of their house and took her on the fateful day away i.e,. 26.08.2011 is remained unproved and cannot be believed. 26.08.2011 is remained unproved and cannot be believed. Consequently, the circumstance relied upon by the prosecution that the accused appellant was last seen in the company of the deceased before her death as set up in the evidence of these two witnesses is demolished in its entirety. If at all the prosecution was desirous of using this circumstance against the appellant, then, it was incumbent upon the Investigating Officer to have collected and exhibited call details of the mobile phone held by the deceased and the accused which could have provided some kind of corroboration to the apparently flimsy prosecution theory. 16. Once, the circumstance of last seen is taken out from the zone of consideration, the remaining circumstances which the prosecution can bank upon to seek affirmation of the impugned judgment are (a) those of demand of dowry allegedly made by the accused from the deceased soon before her death (b) that the appellant made an extra-judicial confession in presence of Arjun Ram, Pabu Ram, Jagram and Natu Ram on 04.09.2011 and (c) that the dead body of Smt. Samdu was recovered at the instance of the accused in furtherance of information supplied by him to the IO under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. 17. In this regard, we have taken into account the entirety of the facts and circumstances as appearing in the testimony of the concerned witnesses. Apparently PW-2 Nathu Ram (being the father of the deceased) washed his hands off the allegation of demand of dowry by admitting that the complaint of the harassment on account of demand of dowry was invariably conveyed by the deceased to her mother. PW-7 Smt. Munni Devi mother of the deceased, no doubt alleged in her testimony that the deceased complained to her that the accused was demanding dowry and that she was being harassed and humiliated in the matrimonial home. However, the prosecution has also set up a positive case that the accused used to express his disliking for the deceased and was threatening that he would leave her and re-marry. Manifestly, these two aspersions cast upon the accused appellant, are self-contradictory and totally divergent. If at all, the accused had such a strong disliking for the deceased Smt Samdu that he wanted to leave her and remarry then, there was no reason for him to harass her on account of demand of dowry. Manifestly, these two aspersions cast upon the accused appellant, are self-contradictory and totally divergent. If at all, the accused had such a strong disliking for the deceased Smt Samdu that he wanted to leave her and remarry then, there was no reason for him to harass her on account of demand of dowry. Furthermore, none of the prosecution witnesses including PW-7 Smt. Munni Devi elaborated in their evidence as to specific nature of demand/demands allegedly made by the accused from the deceased and nor did they state in so many words that the demands were made soon before the death of Smt. Samdu. In this background, we feel that the aspersion cast by prosecution in its evidence that the deceased was harassed and humiliated by the accused appellant on account of demand of dowry soon before her death falls flat on its face and is unacceptable. 18. The remaining two circumstances upon which the prosecution relies strongly in its endeavour to prove the charge against the appellant are twofold; firstly that the accused made an extra judicial confession in presence of Nathu Ram, Arjun Ram, Budhram and Jagram a day before lodging of the FIR admitting that he had murdered the deceased Smt.Samdu. The other circumstance is that of alleged recovery of the dead body from the water bank in furtherance of the information supplied by the accused to the Investigating Officer under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. From the statements of Nathu Ram/PW.3, Arjun Ram/P.W.4, Jagram/PW.6 and Budhram/P.W.3, it emerges that the accused was subjected to stringent questioning after putting him under the oath of God and Ramdevji a day before lodging of the F.I.R. whereupon he blurted out that he had killed Smt.Samdu and had thrown the dead body in the water tank. If at all, this theory is to be accepted, then manifestly, there was no reason for Nathu Ram not to have mentioned in the F.I.R. that the dead body was lying in the water tank. For our satisfaction, we have read the investigational statements of Arjun Ram and Budhram from a perusal whereof, it is revealed that while making the extra judicial confession, the accused also categorically stated that he throttled Smt.Samdu and then disposed of the dead body by throwing it in the water tank behind the old temple at the Dodiyala Fanta. For our satisfaction, we have read the investigational statements of Arjun Ram and Budhram from a perusal whereof, it is revealed that while making the extra judicial confession, the accused also categorically stated that he throttled Smt.Samdu and then disposed of the dead body by throwing it in the water tank behind the old temple at the Dodiyala Fanta. Manifestly, if the extra judicial confession was so elaborate, then there was no reason for Nathu Ram to conceal the whereabouts of the dead body while presenting the F.I.R. to the Investigating Officer or not to take the police to the said place immediately. It is thus clear that the F.I.R. Ex.P19 was stage-managed in such a manner so that the Investigating Officer could subsequently recover the dead body by extracting an information from the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and showcase that the recovery was made exclusively at the instance of the accused. Therefore, we feel that if the theory of extra judicial confession carries even the minimal credibility, then the circumstance of recovery of dead body made by the IO in furtherance of the information supplied by the accused to him under Section 27 of Evidence Act becomes highly doubtful. Furthermore, from a perusal of the statement of IO Shri Gopal Ramawat/IO, it is elicited that while deposing the about the information supplied by the accused to him under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, he stated as below:- ^^eqyfte Jo.kjke dks tfj;s QnZ Án'kZ ih&13 ds ckn rIrh'k fxjrkj fd;k ftl ij , ls ch vtqZujke] lh ls Mh Jo.kjke] bZ ls ,Q esjs gLrk{kj gS ,Dl LFkku ij jkepUæ dh vaxqBk fu'kkuh gSaA tsj fgjklr eqyfte us /kkjk 27 ds rgr bryk nh fd esjh iRuh fd yk'k ftl Vkads esa gS oks pydj cjken djok ldrk gaw tks bryk Án'kZ ih&21 gS ftu ij , ls ch Jo.kjke lh ls Mh esjs gLrk{kj gSA** 19. Thus, there is no disclosure about the place where the dead body was hidden in the intimation provided by the accused to the Investigating Officer. 20. Thus, there is no disclosure about the place where the dead body was hidden in the intimation provided by the accused to the Investigating Officer. 20. Admittedly, the IO failed to prepare the recovery memo after the alleged recovery of the dead body and instead mentioned the factum of recovery in the Fard (Ex.P/1) which again brings the circumstance of recovery of dead body under a grave cloud of doubt and we are convinced that the entire exercise of recovery of Samdu's dead body allegedly made by the IO at the instance of the accused appellant is a fabricated one and that he was well aware of the whereabouts of the dead body even before the FIR was lodged. Thus, we are of the firm opinion that the proceedings whereby the Investigating Officer claims to have drawn up the information of the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and recovered the dead body in furtherance thereof are totally concocted and fabricated. It is a well settled proposition of law that for proving the information received from the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the Investigating Officer has to depose the exact words submitted by the accused and failure to do so would make the evidence about the disclosure statement doubtful. Having perused the relevant documents, we have no hesitation in holding that the investigating officer Gopal Ramawat/PW-14 did not narrate the exact words allegedly stated by the accused in the information under Section 27 of Evidence Act. Manifestly, the same cannot be used as an incriminating piece of evidence against the accused. 21. That apart we find that the charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against the accused by the trial court and the prosecution evidence was also tending to prove the guilt of the accused for the charge of offence of murder alongwith the charge of dowry death but the trial court while concluding the judgment did not record any finding on the charge under Section 302 IPC and instead convicted and sentenced the accused imprisonment for life for offence under Section 304-B IPC. Even if the evidence of Smt. Munni Devi who is the sole witness examined by the prosecution regarding the allegation of demand of dowry made from the deceased is considered, manifestly, even in the statement of this witness, the allegations of demand of dowry are far from convincing and thus, the charge for the offence under Section 304-B IPC attributed to the accused cannot be sustained. 22. Having repelled the claim of the prosecution that the dead body was recovered in furtherance of the information supplied by the accused to the Investigating Officer under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, we now propose to deal with the circumstance of extra judicial confession allegedly made by the accused in presence of Nathu Ram PW.2, Arjun Ram P.W.4, Jagram P.W.6 and Budhram P.W.8. We feel that from the tenor of the evidence of these witnesses, an element of pressure/coercion is writ large on the face of the record in the extra judicial confession allegedly extracted from the accused by these witnesses a day before lodging of the F.I.R. Furthermore, the divergence in the exact language spoken by the accused in presence of these witnesses vis-a-vis that recorded in the F.I.R. makes the evidence of extra judicial confession highly doubtful and unsafe to rely upon. Admittedly, a bare perusal of the statements of PW.2 Nathu Ram and PW.3 Arjun Ram clinches the issue beyond all manner of doubt that the extra-judicial confession was extracted by the police by using third degree methods. PW.2 Nathu Ram stated in his examination-in-chief as below:- ^^iqfyl okyksa us Jo.kjke dks gdjk;k rc Jo.kjke us crk;k fd lenq dk xyk ?kksV dj ekj fn;k gS Lor% dgk fd iqfyl dh dkWy fMVsy ls irk yxk;k FkkA eSa x;k Fkk rc esjs lkFk vtqZu] txjke o ikcqjke Hkh FksA ge rhuksa&pkjksa ds lkeus gh Jo.kjke us crk;k Fkk fd lenq dks mlus xyk ?kksaV dj ekj fn;k gSA** 23. PW.3 Arjun Ram stated in his examination-in-chief as below:- ^^fQj geus Fkkusnkjth dks dgk fd esjs dks fjiksVZ ,slh feyh gSA fQj Fkkusnkj th ,slh ckr crk;h vkSj eqyŒ dks fxjrkj fd;k vkSj ekjihV dh FkhA xokg us dgk fd esjs lkeus ekjihV ugha dh FkhA fQj Jo.kjke gksdj x;k tks esjs lkeus gka ugh Hkjh Fkkus esa gka Hkjh FkhA fQj Jo.k th oks txg Hkh iqfyl okyksa dks crk;h dh ogka ij ekjh Bksdh FkhA** 24. These categoric admissions by these material witnesses i.e., Nathu Ram and Arjun Ram establish beyond doubt that the extrajudicial confession was extracted by the police officials by using third degree methods. 25. In view of the above discussion, we are of the firm opinion that the prosecution failed to lead cogent, convincing and reliable evidence so as to bring home any of the circumstances relied upon by it to prove the charges against the appellant. 26. In view of the fact that we have concluded that the prosecution could not lead positive cogent and clinching evidence to prove the charge that the accused appellant murdered Smt. Samdu punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. or that he is responsible for her dowry death punishable under Section 304-B I.P.C, we need not delve into the argument advanced by learned Public Prosecutor that the powers available to this Court by virtue of Section 386 Cr.P.C. should be exercised so as to convict the accused for the charge under Section 302 I.P.C. 27. In this background, we feel that the accused appellant deserves to be acquitted from the charge under Section 304B IPC in the alternate 302 IPC by extending him the benefit of doubt. However, since there is circumstantial evidence on record to show that the accused was regularly threatening Smt. Samdu to leave her and re-marry on the pretext that she disliked her, the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge for the offence under Section 498A IPC against the accused appellant. Thus, we affirm the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant by the trial court for the offence under Section 498A. 28. Thus, the appeal deserves to be and is hereby allowed in part. Conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 304B I.P.C. in the alternative for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. as recorded by learned trial court vide its judgment dated 30.09.2015 is hereby quashed and set aside. However, his conviction for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. is sustained. The impugned judgment is modified accordingly. The accused is in custody since 05.09.2011 and thus, he has already suffered the maximum sentence of three years provided under Section 498-A I.P.C. Thus, we hereby direct that he shall be released from custody forthwith if not wanted in any other case. 29. The impugned judgment is modified accordingly. The accused is in custody since 05.09.2011 and thus, he has already suffered the maximum sentence of three years provided under Section 498-A I.P.C. Thus, we hereby direct that he shall be released from custody forthwith if not wanted in any other case. 29. However, keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A CR.P.C., the accused appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount before the learned trial court which shall be effective for a period of six months to the effect that in the event of filing of a Special Leave Petition against the present judgment on receipt of notice thereof, the appellant shall appear before the Supreme Court. 30. The appeal is partly allowed in these terms.