P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant/sole accused in S. C. No. 20/96 on the file of Special Sessions judge for trial of cases under Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of atrocities) Act-cum-Additional District and sessions Judge, Prakasam Division, aggrieved by the Judgment dt. 21-12-1998 had preferred the present Criminal Appeal. ( 2 ) THE appellant/accused was charged with Section 307 IPC and also under section 3 of Scheduled Castes and scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) act, 1989. The same was numbered as P. R. C. No. 26/94 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of first Class, Ongole and the same was committed to the Court of Session. The case of the prosecution is that one Kokila venkayamma of Chimakurthy who was a harijan, lost her husband and was living with her parents and accused developed illicit intimacy with her and was visiting the house. Her mother Mannem Ankamma objected to it and asked the accused not to visit their house and Venkayamma to severe her connections with him since there was unmarried daughter. In spite of that the accused insisted Kokila Venkayamma to continue illicit intimacy and was harassing her and that he threatened her mother by giving life threat if she objects. On 30-4-2004 at 3. 30 hours when Mannem Ankamma and her daughter Kokila Venkayamma and the family members were sleeping outside the house, the accused went to the cot of Kokila venkayamma and woke her up and when she questioned the attitude of the accused the accused abused her in filthy language touching her caste and in the mean time her mother Ankamma also woke up and questioned the accused to which he rebelled against her, abused her in filthy language and also stated that she was responsible for disconnection of illegal intimacy with venkayamma and stabbed her with knife on the abdomen and kicked her which was witnessed by other family members and neighbour in the opposite house. P. W. 1 to p. W. 8 were examined and Exs. P-1 to P-6 and Ex. D-1 were marked. The accused was found not guilty under Section 3 (2) (v) and under Section 3 (1) (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of atrocities) Act, 1989, but was found guilty under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for six years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2. D-1 were marked. The accused was found not guilty under Section 3 (2) (v) and under Section 3 (1) (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of atrocities) Act, 1989, but was found guilty under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for six years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2. 000/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment forfour months. Hence the Criminal Appeal. ( 3 ) SRI Rajendra Prasad, the learned counsel representing the appellant would contend that from the material available on record, the scene of offence itself is doubtful. The learned Counsel also pointed out the observation report where it was specifically specified that there was no blood stains or weapons at the scene of offence. The learned counsel also would submit that the weapon also was not seized and apart from this aspect of the matter, it appears that P. W. 1 had given another statement to the complainant which had been suppressed and hence the version of the prosecution may have to be viewed with suspicion inasmuch as in the first report the name of the accused was not mentioned at all and subsequently the accused had been implicated. The Counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to the evidence of p. W. 7 and would contend that the Doctor who had conducted surgery also was not examined and on the strength of the evidence of P. W. 7 alone the conviction cannot be sustained. The Counsel also had pointed out certain infirmities in the evidence of P. W. 1 and the other witnesses. ( 4 ) ON the contrary, the learned Additional public Prosecutor would submit that when direct evidence is available even if there is some infirmity in the medical evidence, it would lose significance and the evidence of p. W. 1 is clear and categorical. The motive for commission of the offence also is clear viz. , P. W. 1 objected to the illicit intimacy of the accused with her daughter. The learned additional Public Prosecutor also placed reliance on Paras Yadav v. State of Bihar, mohan Singh v. State of M. P. and Joseph v. State of Kerala. ( 5 ) HEARD both the Counsel. , P. W. 1 objected to the illicit intimacy of the accused with her daughter. The learned additional Public Prosecutor also placed reliance on Paras Yadav v. State of Bihar, mohan Singh v. State of M. P. and Joseph v. State of Kerala. ( 5 ) HEARD both the Counsel. ( 6 ) IT is pertinent to note that the learned judge had recorded acquittal as far as the offences under Sections 3 (2) (v) and 3 (1) (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 are concerned. The learned Judge recorded findings in detail and also had taken into consideration Ex. P-2, the dying declaration of P. W. 1, wherein the words said to have been stated had not been specified. P. W. 1 no doubt deposed about the incident and also deposed about Ex. P-1. In cross- examination she no doubt deposed that S. I. was not present at the time her statement was recorded by the Police. It was specifically suggested to the Investigating Officer that prior to Ex. P-1, P. W. 1 gave another statement to constable in which the name of the accused was not there and the same was suppressed and it was substituted by a false report. No doubt this suggestion was denied. But, in view of the evidence of P. W. 1 when read with the evidence of P. W. 8, it would create some doubt or suspicion whether ex. P-1 was the first report or there was yet another report given to the Police inasmuch as S. I. was not present at the time when her statement was recorded even as per the evidence of P. W. 1. P. W. 2 no doubt deposed about the illicit intimacy of this P. W. 2 with the accused and what happened on the fateful day. No doubt much comment was made on the evidence of P. W. 2 and the contradictory version in between the evidence of P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 and the counsel pointed out that this witness deposed that she fell down in front of the house and the accused stabbed her near the road and she fell down in the drainage canal. The Counsel pointed out to the corresponding injuries and also the absence of blood stains at the scene of offence and would contend that even as per the scene of offence of the prosecution, it is highly doubtful whether the incident happened as deposed by the prosecution witnesses. P. W. 3 also had corroborated the evidence of p. W. 1 and P. W. 2. P. W. 4 also deposed supporting the version of P. W. 1. P. W. 5 deposed that she woke up hearing the galata at the house of P. W. 1, the accused had abused P. W. 1 pointing out her caste and stabbed her with knife on her abdomen and went towards Bazar on a bicycle. P. W. 6 deposed about Ex. P-3 observation report. P. W. 7, the Doctor expressed the opinion that injury No. 1 is grievous and injury No. 2 is simple in nature. Ex. P-4 is the certificate issued by him and injuries 1 and 2 can be caused by knife. This witness also deposed that Dr. Malakondaiah Chowdhry had conducted the surgery, but this witness was not examined. Injury No. 2 is not corresponding by injury No. 1 and it cannot be grievous in nature. This is the medical evidence available. P. W. 8 is the Investigating officer who deposed about the details of investigation. This witness in cross- examination deposed that the scene of offence is towards North-East of the house of p. W. 1. Priorto Ex. P-1 report, P. W. 1 and her family members did not give any other report. He recorded the statement of P. W. 1. He denied the suggestion that prior to Ex. P-1, p. W. 1 gave another statement to the constable in which the name of the accused does not find place and it was suppressed and substituted by this false report. In ex. P-1, P. W. 1 did not state that she asked p. W. 2 to sever her connections with the accused as there are unmarried daughters. P. W. 1 stated before him as in Ex. P-1 and as recorded by him in Section 161 Cr. P. C. statement. P. W. 2 stated before him as in ex. D-1. No doubt he had denied the other suggestions. P. W. 1 stated before him as in Ex. P-1 and as recorded by him in Section 161 Cr. P. C. statement. P. W. 2 stated before him as in ex. D-1. No doubt he had denied the other suggestions. ( 7 ) AS can be seen from the evidence available on record, inasmuch as P. W. 1 objected to the carrying on with illicit intimacy the accused had resorted to this Act. As per the evidence of P. W. 1 to P. W. 5 and also the medical evidence, this Court of the opinion that the ingredients of Section 307 I PC as such are not satisfied. Apart from this aspect of the matter, the weapon was not seized and as per the observation report there were no blood stains at the scene of occurrence. No doubt submissions at length were made that absolutely there is no evidence relating to the specific scene of offence and it is doubtful whether the version of the prosecution can be believed. As per the medical evidence though the Doctor who conducted surgery was not examined and the other reports were not marked, P. W. 7 deposed about the causing of the injuries. In the facts and circumstances of the case, taking the nature of the injuries into consideration and the absence of the evidence of the Surgeon, this court is of the considered opinion that at the best the appellant/accused be convicted under Section 324 IPC and accordingly the conviction and sentence recorded, as against the appellant/accused are hereby set aside and the appellant is convicted under section 3241 PC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to undergo S. I. for four months. It is however brought to the notice of this Court that the fine amount of rs. 2,000/- already had been paid by the appellant. ( 8 ) ACCORDINGLY, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above.