JUDGMENT :

1. This Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.03.1998 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja in Sessions Trial No.329/1996 convicting the Appellant under Section 306 IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for 7 years.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the Appellant had abducted the deceased namely Ku. Sushma and took her to Village Bhatgawa and the father of the deceased Dharam Sai (PW-1) had gone along with the father of the Appellant to the said village and brought her back. Thereafter, the deceased disclosed that the Appellant, in a forceful manner, made physical relation with her for which, a separate trial has been conducted vide S.T. No.328/1996 under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC in which, the Appellant was convicted and awarded sentence of 7 years vide judgment dated 03.07.1998 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur. It is alleged that after returning from village Bhatgawa, when the deceased was taken to lodge FIR, she had consumed poison and was hospitalized and during treatment, on the next day, she died. Merg intimation (Ex.P-2) and subsequently, FIR (Ex.P-3) have been registered. Statement of the witnesses have been recorded. In the FSL report (Ex.P-14), insecticide-Zinc Phosphate was found in the viscera and the same was collected during the postmortem of the deceased by Dr. Sanjay Tripathi (PW-8).

3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the present Appellant. During trial, the Appellant abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses and exhibited 14 documents. Statement of the accused/Appellant was also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C in which, he denied the charges levelled against him and pleaded innocence and in his defence, has not examined any witness.

4. After evaluating the evidence, the trial Court, vide its impugned judgment, convicted the Appellant as mentioned above.

5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the impugned order of conviction is contrary to the facts and evidence available on record. He further submits that the prosecution has failed to prove the necessary ingredients to attract the offence under Section 306 IPC. He further submits that Dharam Sai (PW-1), father of the deceased had, though the Appellant and the deceased both were in love relation, brought the deceased back from village Bhatgawa and thereafter, she took an extreme step of ending her life, therefore, there is possibility that she could have taken such a step due to pressure of her parents.

6. Pet contra, learned State Counsel supported the impugned judgment.

7. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the judgment impugned with utmost circumspection.

8. Dharam Sai (PW-1), the father of the deceased had stated that the Appellant had abducted his daughter and took her to village Bhatgawa, therefore, he went along with the father of the Appellant to the said village where she was found and the Appellant fled away from there. Dharam Sai (PW-1) took the deceased to Ambikapur police station where her statement has been recorded and she had also disclosed that the Appellant had, in a forceful manner, made physical relation with her. Thereafter, during the night, wife of Dharam Sai (PW-1) namely Satrangi Bai (PW-2) had informed him that the deceased told her that she had consumed poison and then she was taken to hospital and on the next day, she died.

9. Jawahar (PW-5) had given merg intimation that for treatment of poison, the deceased was hospitalized on 13.05.1996 at 7.30 a.m at District Hospital, Ambikapur where she died on 14.5.1996 at 11.30 a.m. Based on such information (Ex.P2), merg intimation has been registered. Subsequently, FIR (Ex.P-3) has been lodged that the Appellant had instigated the deceased to commit suicide and offence under Section 306 IPC was regi