JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by appellant Hemraj against the judgment dated 26.4.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Women Cruelty and Dowry Cases Court, Bhilwara in Sessions Case No. 41/2002 whereby he has been found guilty for the offences under Sections 376/511 I.P.C. and Section 306 I.P.C. He has been awarded five years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 500/-fine and in default of payment of fine, to undergo one month simple imprisonment under Section 376/511 I.P.C. and 10 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months S.I. under Section 306 I.P.C. 2. The prosecution story in nut-shell is to the effect that on 26.5.2002 complainant Soji Ram Meena submitted a written report before the S.H.O. Jahajpur alleging there in that on 25.5.2002, his niece Nirmala, Badam Devi and her six year son went to dig mud from Samariya. At that time, accused Hemraj asked Nirmala to collect vegetables from his agricultural farm. On his request, Nirmala went to the agricultural farm of accused appellant where the accused tried to commit rape which was resisted by Nirmala. Nirmala gave.a blow with the pot on the face of Hemraj which injured the accused and the accused fled away. When the complainant came back after searching for Hemraj and family, Nirmala was suffering from stomach pain and vomitting. Nirmala was taken to hospital where she was declared dead. After usual investigation, a challan was filed in the Court of Magistrate who committed the case and the case came for trial to the Court concerned. The accused was charged for the offences under Sections 376/511 and 306 I.P.C. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for appellant as well as the learned Special Public Prosecutor and have perused the record of the trial Court. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant arguing the appeal urged that he does not challenge the conviction under Section 376/511 I.P.C. because the evidence in this regard though do not travel beyond 354 I.P.C. but it will be of no consequence to challenge the same as the accused has remained behind the bars for more than four years. Thus, it is submitted that the conviction under Section 376/511 I.P.C. be sustained and he may be awarded sentence already undergone. 5. Thus, it is submitted that the conviction under Section 376/511 I.P.C. be sustained and he may be awarded sentence already undergone. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the accused seriously contends that there was no proof adduced by the prosecution to establish that the suicide was committed by the prosecutrix. The medical report in the shape of postmortem report is silent as to how she died. There is no other evidence available on record to establish as to what was the reason and cause of death. In absence of reason and cause of death being available on record, it cannot be said that the death was un-natural. There is material available on record which shows that the prosecutrix was suffering from epilepsy. Epilepsy fits have the tendency of causing death some times. In that view of the matter, the benefit of doubt is required to be given to the accused because no such evidence has been brought on record by the prosecution to suggest that the death was for such cause which can be said to be un-natural. Considering the case of the prosecution, the lady was found vomitting. No other aspect has been brought to suggest that any external aid was taken to finish the life. There is no proof of un-natural death on record. In post mortem report, the opinion was reserved awaiting chemical examination of visra. No such report has been filed. Even Dr. C.P. Jain PW-19 has said in his evidence that symptoms of death were those which are in natural death, therefore, no opinion about death was given. The cause of death having not been reported by medical evidence and no evidence having been brought on record, the conviction under Section 306 I.P.C. deserves to be set aside. Consequently, his sentence is also set aside. 6. The appeal is partly allowed as indicated above. The conviction and sentence under Section 306 I.P.C. is set aside and the conviction under Section 376/511 I.P.C. is maintained as not challenged. His sentence is reduced to theme. period already undergone. He is in jail. He shall be released forthwith, if., required in any other case.Appeal partly allowed. *******