( 1. ) THE appellant has filed this appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara, in Sessions Trial No. 102/89 on 30-4-1990, by which appellant has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default, to further undergo one year rigorous imprisonment.

( 2. ) BRIEFLY narrated, the prosecution story is : The appellant and Gaurabai had married to each other 13 years back and they were having four sons. The appellant was residing with his family in his house situated at his farm. On 13-5-88, Gaurabai wife of appellant, committed suicide by jumping into the well along with four sons. As per prosecution story the dispute between husband and wife was going on since last two months. On 13-5-88 also some dispute occurred between appellant and deceased and as per Champabai (P. W. 1) deceased told to her that appellant slapped her twice in the morning, because she (deceased) has not prepared the food in time and also told her that he will perform second marriage and will treat deceased as servant.

( 3. ) FOR the suicide committed by Gaura Bai, the appellant (husband) was charge-sheeted for committing offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. In order to prove the guilt, the prosecution examined Champabai (P. W. 1), Ganga Bai (P. W. 2), Moti Ram (P. W. 3), Lakhmi Chand (P. W. 4), Anakh Lal (P. W. 5) and Awadhesh Tiwari (P. W. 6 ). In defence, appellant examined Shiv Lal (D. W. 1 ).

( 4. ) CHAMPABAI (P. W. 1) in her statement deposed that deceased told her on 13-5-88 at 3. 00 p. m. that in the morning appellant slapped her once, then P. W. 1 further stated that she overheard from her house appellant saying her wife (deceased) that, "you are not preparing the food", should I prepare ? In will bring another woman Treating this sufficient to bring home the guilt of appellant, the Sessions Court convicted the appellant under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced as referred above.

( 5. ) BEING aggrieved by this judgment of conviction, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

( 6. ) HEARD Shri Siddharth Datt, learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri R. K. Verma, learned Counsel for the State. Perused the record.

( 7. ) THE case of the prosecution for proving the alleged offence is based on the solitary statement of Champabai (P. W. 1 ). The other witnesses Ganga Bai (P. W. 2) mother of deceased and Moti Ram (P. W. 3) brother of deceased have not supported the prosecution story and turned hostile, on the other hand, they stated that the relationship between appellant and deceased was cordial and the appellant was treating his wife (deceased) properly. In the statement of Champabai (P. W. 1), the only allegation against appellant is that because of non preparation of food, in time, the appellant slapped his wife, and in anger, told her that, he will marry another woman and keep deceased as servant.

( 8. ) I have given my deep consideration to the above referred statement made against appellant by Champabai (P. W. 1 ). The truthfulness of statement of Champabai (P. W. 1) is doubtful because in her statement, she has stated that she had disclosed this fact of dispute between appellant and his wife to Gangabai (P. W. 2), Moti Ram (P. W. 3) and other persons who were present on 14-5-1988, i. e. , next day of the date of incident when the dead-bodies were recovered from the well. It is surprising that when she was present on 14-5-1988 and was telling about dispute of deceased with appellant, why her statement was not recorded by the police on that day itself or immediately thereafter, instead of being recorded after 14 days on 28-5-1988. However, even assuming statement of Champabai (P. W. 1) to be truthful it has to be noted whether it is sufficient to prove the charge of abetment of suicide against appella