HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CRL.R.C.No. 1104 of 2005 O R D E R: The revision is laid by P.W.1, who is the defacto complainant (2nd respondent herein). He assails the Judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial court. 2. The accused was charged for the offence u/Sec.3(i)(x) of S.Cs & S.Ts,. (POA) Act ( for short ‘the Act’) as well as for the offence u/Secs.323 and 506 IPC. Considering that no case was made out, the learned I Addl. Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, acquitted the accused. Aggrieved by the same, the defacto complainant preferred the present revision. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 4.5.2004, P.W.2, who was the brother of the Sarpanch of the village, intercepted the accused and questioned about the conduct of the accused in making imputations against P.W.2. P.W.2 denied the same. P.W.1, who belonged to Scheduled caste community, was passing by at that time. P.W.2 called P.W.1 and enquired whether the accused was making imputations against P.W.2 or not. P.W.1 answered in the affirmative. 4. Leaving P.W.2 aside, the accused quarreled with P.W.1, beat him, threatened him and also abused him referring him by his caste name, according to the prosecution version. The prosecution thus, considered that the accused was guilty of the offence u/Sec. 3(i)(x) of the Act as well as for the offence u/Sec.323 and 506 IPC. 5. The prosecution examined as many as eleven witnesses. P.Ws.1 to 7 were the eye witnesses. All of them have stated that the accused beat P.W.1 and make derogatory statements against P.W.1 with reference to his community. The other witnesses are the Investigating Officer, mediator and the Mandal Revenue Officer. While the material witnesses specifically stated that the accused uttered words damagingly referring to the community of P.W.1, who belongs to Schedule caste community, the offence u/Se.3(i)(x) of the Act prima facie is made out. However, the learned trial Judge inter alia held that the offence was not made out on the ground that the intention was not established. 6. Sri V.Ramachandar Rao, learned counsel for the defacto complainant has pointed out that the intention of the accused is to insult P.W.1 by referring to the name of the community of P.W.1 and the same is patent from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7. 7. I am not able to agree with the findings of the learned trial Judge. I consider that it would be a just case for remitting the same to the trial court for fresh consideration and disposal of the case according to law. 8. As I propose to remit the case for fresh consideration, I refrain from making further comments about the merits of the case and the evidentiary value of the witnesses. It is for the trial court to re-assess the evidence of the witnesses and dispose of the case on merits in accordance with law. 9. The revision is accordingly, allowed and the Judgment of the trial court is set aside. The case in SC No.905 of 2004 is remitted to the trial court for fresh consideration and disposal. The learned I Addl. Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, shall accord opportunity to both sides to advance their submissions and arguments and after hearing the same shall dispose of the same on merits in accordance with law without being influenced by any observations made in this revision. _____________ K.G.SHANKAR, J Dt. 26.8.2011 Mjl/*