P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri B. Sree Rama Krishna, counsel representing the appellant-accused by way of Legal Aid and Sri Mohd. Osman shaheed, Additional Public Prosecutor. ( 2 ) THE accused in Sessions Case No. 54 of 2003 on the file of the Sessions Judge, mahila Court, Vijayawada, had preferred the present criminal appeal. ( 3 ) SRI B. Sree Rama Krishna, the learned counsel representing the appellant-accused would submit that this is a controversy between the mother-in-law and son-in-law, and the whole intention of the son-in-law was to have re-union with his wife, and at any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that the accused had an intention to do away with the life of the mother-in-law, and hence, the conviction and sentence imposed cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel had taken this Court through the evidence of P. Ws 1,2 and also the medical evidence and would submit that the evidence is not clear, whether the acid which had been used is of such a dangerous nature, so as to attract the ingredients under Section 307 IPC, or so as to establish the intention of the accused, and hence, the accused is entitled for an acquittal. ( 4 ) ON the contrary, the learned Additional public Prosecutor had taken this Court through the evidence available on record, and would submit that the very nature of the act perpetrated by the accused would go to show that his intention was to do away with the life of P. W. 1 and hence, the conviction and sentence are to be confirmed. ( 5 ) HEARD both the counsel. ( 6 ) THE Sub-Inspector of Police, Law and order, II Town Police Station filed the charge sheet against the accused in Crime No. 14 of 2003 for an offence under Section 307 IPC. ( 7 ) THE case of the prosecution is that the accused is the son-in-law of P. W. 1 and husband of P. W. 2. The marriage of P. W. 2 was performed with the accused about 15 years back and they had one son (P. W. 5) and a daughter. About 1 years back due to petty quarrel, the accused beat his wife (P. W. 2) and caused head injury, and since then she along with her children residing separately in the same village. The marriage of P. W. 2 was performed with the accused about 15 years back and they had one son (P. W. 5) and a daughter. About 1 years back due to petty quarrel, the accused beat his wife (P. W. 2) and caused head injury, and since then she along with her children residing separately in the same village. The accused on four occasions, prior to the incident, requested P. W. 1 to send P. W. 2 and her children to his house, but P. W. 1 postponing the same. In view of the same,. the accused bore grudge against P. W. 1 to do away with her life. In pursuance thereof, on 14-01-2003 at 5. 00 p. m. , the accused went to the house of P. W. 1 with plastic mug containing acid hidening it from his behind, called her (P. W. 1) and suddenly poured acid on her head, face and that she sustained acid burn injuries on her face, neck, chest etc. , and immediately she was shifted to the Hospital, and there her statement was recorded by the police, and registered the same as a crime. The same as numbered as P. R. C. No. 3 of 2003, which was committed to the Court of sessions, and the same was numbered as sessions Case No. 54 of 2003 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, vijayawada, wherein the learned Judge, examined P. W. 1 to 10, Exs. P-1 to P-10 and m. Os 1 to 4 were marked, and ultimately, the learned Judge after recording the reasons, found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of five months. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal was preferred. ( 8 ) P. W. 1 deposed that the accused is the husband of her 2nd daughter (P. W 2) and they were married about 16 years back and they had one son and one daughter. She deposed that the accused and her daughter used to quarrel with each other regularly and about one year back, the accused beat her daughter resulting head injury. She deposed that the accused and her daughter used to quarrel with each other regularly and about one year back, the accused beat her daughter resulting head injury. She deposed that as the accused was torturing her daughter, she had taken a single portion of the house and used to reside separately with her children. P. W. 1 further deposed that on boghi day at 5. 00 p. m. the accused came to her house by keeping his both hands on hips and poured some substance on her head, as a result of which there were heavy flames on her head, face, neck shoulders with burn injuries. She deposed that even today she cannot hear with her ears due to the burn injuries on her ears and her head, face and body sustained burn injuries. She deposed that the accused also abused her in most vulgar language and threatened her that he will do away with her life and went away. ( 9 ) P. W. 2 also deposed that what had happened on the prior occasion, and three years back, how she was beaten by her husband-accused with stick on her head and thereby she sustained severe head injury, and lodged a report and since then she had been living separately, and what had happened on the boghi day. She also deposed that she was informed by her sister that the accused poured acid on P. W. 1. ( 10 ) P. W. 3-daughter of P. W. 1 deposed that about the pre-incident events and also about the pouring of acid by the accused on p. W. 1 on the fateful day. P. W. 4 another daughter of P. W. 1 also had deposed the same effect. P. W. 5-son of P. W. 2 also deposed about the accused pouring acid on p. W. 1. P. W. 6 deposed that he was informed about the accused pouring acid on p. W. 1. ( 11 ) P. W. 7 deposed that on 14-01 -2003 at 10. 00 p. m. , he was present when the police observed the scene of offence. He also deposed that police seized M. Os 1 to 4 under the cover of scene of observation report-Ex. P-5, which he had scribed. ( 11 ) P. W. 7 deposed that on 14-01 -2003 at 10. 00 p. m. , he was present when the police observed the scene of offence. He also deposed that police seized M. Os 1 to 4 under the cover of scene of observation report-Ex. P-5, which he had scribed. ( 12 ) P. W. 8 deposed that on 14-01-2003 she had examined P. W. 1 and found acid burns 30% over the body and the said injuries are grievous in nature and may be due to acid burns and she issue Ex. P-6- certificate in this regard. ( 13 ) P. W. 9 deposed that L. W. 10 the assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, registered the crime, and did most of the investigation, and he had taken up further investigation and filed the charge sheet. ( 14 ) P. W. 10-Assistant Sub-Inspector of police deposed that on receipt of hospital intimation he proceeded to the G. G. H. , vijayawada, and recorded the statement- ex. P-1 of P. W. 1 and registered the same as a case in Crime No. 14 of 2003 and submitted the First Information Reports to all the concerned. ( 15 ) THE evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 5 is clear and categorical. No doubt, the evidence of p. W. 6 is in the nature of hearsay. The medical evidence would disclose that the burns were 30% over the body and these injuries are grievous in nature and may be due to acid burns and Ex. P-6 is the certificate in this regard. ( 16 ) THE main grievance of the appellant- accused appears to be that P. W. 1-his mother-in-law is coming in the way of his reunion with his wife. Though acid injury and 30% acid burns had been deposed by p. W. 8-doctor and though the doctor deposed that these are grievous in nature, whether the pouring of such acid would in ordinary course can result in the death, and what could have been the intention and what is the gravity of the concentration or the nature of the acid, these aspects had not been deposed clearly. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the acid was poured by the accused on P. W. 1, due to which, she had sustained the acid injuries. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the acid was poured by the accused on P. W. 1, due to which, she had sustained the acid injuries. Absolutely, there is no controversy about this aspect of the matter, and this is well established by the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 5, who are the relatives, not only to P. W. 1, but also they are relatives to the accused too. In view of the close relationship between the parties, their evidence cannot doubted in any way. Taking into consideration the medical evidence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the conviction and sentence imposed under Section 307 IPC as such cannot be sustained, and accordingly, they are liable to be set aside. ( 17 ) SO taking into consideration the close relationship -between the parties, and the view, with which this act was perpetrated, the conviction and the sentence of Rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default, to undergo Simple imprisonment for a period of five months, which had been imposed by the learned Judge, are hereby side aside. But, however, it is clear case falling under section 326 IPC. ( 18 ) IN the result, the conviction and the sentence imposed by the learned Sessions judge, Mahila Court, Vijayawada in sessions Case No. 54 of 2003 against the accused-appellant on 22-08-2003 for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC are hereby set aside. But in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the accused is convicted under Section 326 IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years. ( 19 ) IT is needless to say that the accused is entitled to set off of the period of imprisonment, if any, already undergone by him. ( 20 ) ACCORDINGLY, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above.