B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THE learned Additional sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy convicted the appellant herein for the offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (xii) and section 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) act, 1989 (for short the Act ) read with section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the Code ) and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for a period of ten years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for one year. The judgment of the learned Additional Sessions judge, Medak at Sangareddy, dated 25-9-1997 in SC/st SC No. 16 of 1996 is challenged by this appellant in this criminal appeal. ( 2 ) IT may be necessary to briefly notice the prosecution case against the appellant. It is the case of the prosecution that on 23-1-1995 Papolla Salawa-PW5 left the house for attending the work in her fields situated at Shankapur village limits, and while she was alone attending to her work in the fields, at about 3-00 p. m. , the appellant herein assaulted her from behind, pushed her on to the ground, overpowered her and forcibly committed rape on her. She raised hue and cry. PW1 the complainant who is none other than the husband of the victim lady and who was also coming to his fields rushed there and by that time he saw the appellant herein fleeing away from the scene of offence. He found that PW5 was weeping. PW1 along with his associate PW3 chase the appellant herein and caught him. The appellant herein is alleged to have confessed about his guilt. PWs. l and 3 entrusted the appellant herein to the village elders and inturn the village elders reprimanded the appellant. It is alleged that due to fear of villagers, the appellant herein escaped from the villagers and drowned himself in an agricultural well. However, he was rescued. PW1 lodged a complaint on 24-1-1995 before PW13-Sub-Inspector of Police, shankarampet (Rural), and a case was registered in Crime No. 4 of 1995 under section 376 of the Code read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. PW 12 investigated into the offence and filed the charge-sheet against the appellant. ( 3 ) THE prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses on its behalf and marked ex. PW 12 investigated into the offence and filed the charge-sheet against the appellant. ( 3 ) THE prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses on its behalf and marked ex. P1 to Ex. P13. ( 4 ) THE learned Additional Sessions, Judge, Medak at Sangareddy upon appreciation of oral evidence and material available on record, found the appellant herein guilty of the charge under section 3 (1) (xii) and Section 3 (2) (v) of the act read with Section 376 of the Code, and accordingly sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment as stated supra. The conviction as well as the sentence imposed upon him is challenged in this appeal. ( 5 ) SRI N. V. Raghava Reddy, learned Counsel for the appellant contends that there is no evidence whatsoever on record to convict the appellant for the charge under Section 376 of the Code. Learned counsel submits that it would be totally unsafe to convict the appellant herein on the sole testimony of PW5 which remains uncorroborated. Learned Counsel would further contend that the whole of prosecution story is full of inconsistencies and contradictions. It is contended that the evidence of PW5 cannot be accepted for variety of reasons. The learned Counsel would also urge that the medical evidence available on record would clearly go against the case of the prosecution version putforth by PW5 learned Public Prosecutor makes an attempt to support the judgment rendered by the learned Additional Sessions judge and contends that there is no reason whatsoever to disbelieve the evidence of pw5 and that itself would be enough to convict the appellant herein for the charge under Section 376 of the Code. ( 6 ) I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions made at the Bar. The whole of the prosecution case mainly rests upon the evidence of pws. 1 and 5. Therefore, it would be necessary to have a fresh look at the whole of the evidence of PWs. 1 and 5. ( 7 ) PW1 is the husband of the victim lady-PW5. PW2 is the father of PW1. It is stated by PW1 that he knows the accused who belongs to his village. In his evidence, it is stated that about three years back at about 3 p. m. , the appellant has raped his wife Salawa at their agricultural well. ( 7 ) PW1 is the husband of the victim lady-PW5. PW2 is the father of PW1. It is stated by PW1 that he knows the accused who belongs to his village. In his evidence, it is stated that about three years back at about 3 p. m. , the appellant has raped his wife Salawa at their agricultural well. On the fateful day, PW1 went to the fields of one Veeraiah and after attending to the repairs of oil engine, was returning to his agricultural fields. The appellant came running towards him from the sunflower field on seeing him. Then, he caught hold of the appellant as his wife informed him that the appellant has raped her. But, however, the appellant got himself released from him and at that time PW3 was also present and again the appellant was caught by PWs. l and 3. The appellant was taken into the village by PWs. 1 and 3. The village elders advised PW1 that they would talk about the matter next day, but no panchayat took place on the next day. Thereafter, PW1 and victim PW5 went to the Police Station, Shankarampet. He gave a written complaint to the police and narrated all the facts to the police. His statement was recorded by the police. Ex. Pl is the complaint given by him, which contains his signature. In the cross-examination, it is stated by PW1 that somebody wrote Ex. P1 and he is not aware of his name. Ex. P1 was drafted by one person from Shankarampet. Ex. P1 was prepared at the dictation of salavva-PW5. He does not remember the names of the elders of the village to whom the appellant was handed over by himself and PW3. It is his specific case that himself and PW3 caught hold of the appellant. ( 8 ) PW2 is the father of PW1. In his evidence it is stated that his family owns two acres of land. It is further stated by him that about three years back his daughter-in-law PW5 went to attend the field work in their fields and PW1 went to attend some repairing work at the field of PW3 and he was at his house. At about 2-00 p. m. , PW3 came to him and informed that PW1 and the appellant were quarrelling with each other by catching hold of their collars. At about 2-00 p. m. , PW3 came to him and informed that PW1 and the appellant were quarrelling with each other by catching hold of their collars. PW2, thereafter, along with some village elders went to bring back PW1, but on the way PW. 1 and the appellant met pw2 and others and they were brought to hanuman temple of the village. At that time, the appellant all of a sudden jumped into the well of Muthula Mallaiah. He was taken from the well waters and took him towards the village and since it was evening time, the appellant was handed over to his parents and his parents told them that they can talk about the matter tomorrow. On enquiry, PW5 revealed to him that the appellant dragged her by shutting her mouth towards sunflower fields and raped her. Then pw1 along with others went to relatives of the appellant, but they did not respond to their call. Thereafter, he advised his daughter-in-law PW5 to lodge a complaint to the police along with her husband. Accordingly, PW. 1 gave a complaint to the police. ( 9 ) PW3 did not support the case of the prosecution. ( 10 ) PW5 is the victim. In her evidence, it is stated that she knows the appellant herein who belongs to Shankapur village. It is in her evidence that about three years back when she was in the fields at Shankapur at about 3-00 p. m. , all of a sudden, the appellant came there and after putting her own saree in her mouth, forcibly raped her by throwing on the ground and blood was oozing from her private parts. It is her evidence that PW1 came there and then she fell unconscious. Later on, she came to know that PW1 caught the appellant and took him to the village. Thereafter, the village elders called for a panchayat, but the appellant and his family members did not agree for the said panchayat. Thereafter, herself and PW1 went to Police Station, shankarampet and lodged a complaint. Police examined her, and she was referred to Government Hospital, Sangareddy for examination. Her clothes were seized. In the cross-examination, she specifically admits that she regained her conscious only on the next day of the alleged incident, somewhere in or around at 10-00 a. m. , or 12-00 noon. Police examined her, and she was referred to Government Hospital, Sangareddy for examination. Her clothes were seized. In the cross-examination, she specifically admits that she regained her conscious only on the next day of the alleged incident, somewhere in or around at 10-00 a. m. , or 12-00 noon. As on the date of her statement, she was residing at Bacharajpally with her husband by name Raja Rao. She contracted second marriage after the incident. It is in her evidence that the complaint was got drafted by PW1 through someone. PWS s marriage took place 1-1/2 years prior to the incident. On the fateful day of the incident, PWs. 1, 2 mother, father and brother of PW5 were present at pw1 s house. Her mother remained with her, but her father and brother left on the next day. It is in her evidence that one week prior to the incident her parents and brother came to the house of PW1 and cautioned PW1 not to beat PW5 after consuming drinks. It is in her evidence that after their lodging the complaint, the appellant and his parents also came to the police station. This is the material evidence on record, which is required to be re- appreciated. ( 11 ) PW5 in her evidence in specific terms states that immediately after the rape, she fell unconscious and regained her conscious only on the next day. It is also stated that after the rape, blood was oozing from her private parts. It is in her evidence that PW1-her husband came to the spot after she fell unconscious. It is nowhere in her evidence that she informed PW1 about the appellant raping her. PW1 in his evidence says that he caught hold of the appellant herein as his wife informed him that the appellant has raped her. According to him, the appellant came running towards him from sunflower field on seeing him. The question of PW5 informing PW. 1 about the appellant raping her does not arise. PW5 in her evidence does not state that she informed her husband PW1 about the incident of rape. On the other hand, it is in the evidence of PW1 that he found the appellant herein running towards him after seeing him. It is in his evidence that PW3- beeraiah was also present and assisted him in apprehending the appellant. PW5 in her evidence does not state that she informed her husband PW1 about the incident of rape. On the other hand, it is in the evidence of PW1 that he found the appellant herein running towards him after seeing him. It is in his evidence that PW3- beeraiah was also present and assisted him in apprehending the appellant. But, PW3 turned hostile and in his evidence expressed ignorance of the incident. Here, the evidence of PW2 becomes crucial. According to him, PW3 came to him at about 2-00 p. m. and informed that PW1 and the appellant were quarreling with each other. Upon hearing the same, PW2 immediately along with some village elders went to bring back pw1 and he met PW1 and the appellant on the way. He does not say that he came to know about the incident either from PW1 or pw3. On the other hand, PW2 in his evidence states that on enquiry, PW5 revealed that the appellant herein dragged her by shutting her mouth from sunflower fields and raped her. But, PW5 in her evidence states that she fell unconscious and regained her consciousness only on the next day. But, PW2 in his evidence states that pw1 and himself along with village elders took the appellant herein to his parents and his parents told them that they can discuss about the matter tomorrow. PW2 does not state in his evidence as to when PW5 informed him about the alleged act of rape by the appellant. ( 12 ) ANOTHER interesting aspect to be noticed is that according to PW5, her parents were very much present on the day of the incident. In the natural course, pw5 ought to have informed about the incident to her mother. But, it is nobody s case that PW5 informed about any incident as such to her mother. At any rate, the parents of PW5 who were present in the village on the fateful day were not examined by the police. ( 13 ) THE Civil Assistant Surgeon is examined as PW10. Her evidence is crucial in the matter. In her evidence, it is stated that the Forensic Science Laboratory report which was received, does not show the detection of semen and spermatozoa in the vaginal slides. It is also stated that the victim did not disclose the discharge of semen and blood from vagina. Her evidence is crucial in the matter. In her evidence, it is stated that the Forensic Science Laboratory report which was received, does not show the detection of semen and spermatozoa in the vaginal slides. It is also stated that the victim did not disclose the discharge of semen and blood from vagina. There is no inflamation and no laceration on vagina and no swelling of vulva. She expressed her opinion that in the absence of local injuries, it can be presumed that there was sexual intercourse, but it may not be rape. The small injury that was found on right cheek can be self-inflicted. The Civil assistant Surgeon did not find any injuries on the thighs and back of PW5. Another crucial aspect in the evidence of pw10 is that on enquiry PW5 has revealed that she was raped by an unknown person where she was alone in the field. The medical evidence does not support the version given by PW5. The Medical Officer did not find any semen and spermatozoa in the vaginal slides. No injuries were noticed on private parts. But, PW5 in her evidence stated that immediately after the commission of act of rape there was profuse bleeding from her private parts and she fell unconscious. The medical evidence on record does not corroborate the version putforth by PW5. ( 14 ) IN nutshell the version given by PW5 is not supported by even PWs. 1 and 2. PW1 in his evidence in categorical terms states that he caught hold of the appellant herein as his wife informed him that the appellant has raped her. PW5 in her evidence does not state that she has informed PW1 about the rape at any time. These major inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence of material witnesses - PWs. 1, 2 and 5 create a lot of suspicion and doubt about the prosecution case. Added to that, PW10-the Civil assistant Surgeon who examined PW5, in her evidence clearly states that she did not find any external injuries on the body of PW5. She has also not noticed any semen and spermatozoa in the vaginal slides. ( 15 ) IN the aforesaid circumstances, it would not be safe to convict the appellant here in on mere suspicion. The inconsistencies and contradictions noticed above are fatal to the case of the prosecution and create any amount of doubt. She has also not noticed any semen and spermatozoa in the vaginal slides. ( 15 ) IN the aforesaid circumstances, it would not be safe to convict the appellant here in on mere suspicion. The inconsistencies and contradictions noticed above are fatal to the case of the prosecution and create any amount of doubt. Obviously, it is the appellant who is entitled for the benefit of doubt. ( 16 ) IN the aforesaid circumstances, I find it difficult to sustain the conviction of the appellant herein for the offence under Section 3 (1) (xii) and Section 3 (2) (v) of the Act read with Section 376- of the Code. The conviction as well as the sentence of the appellant herein is set aside. ( 17 ) THE appeal is accordingly allowed.