Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-By this criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 CrPC, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 20.1.2005 passed by Special Judge SC/ST(Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Jalore (for short the trial Court hereinafter) in Cr. Case No. 13/2004 whereby the trial Court allowed the application filed by complainant under Section 319 CrPC and arraigned the petitioners as accused. Aggrieved by the order impugned, the petitioners have filed the instant revision petition. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners. Perused the judgment and order impugned as also the challan papers and the statements of the prosecution witnesses so far recorded. 3. Complainant Mana Ram lodged the first information report, inter alia, alleging therein that on 26.2003 at about 7.00 PM he was given beating by Tikmaram, Raju and Lala Ram. It was also alleged that he was abused indicating his caste being a member of scheduled caste. After investigation, police filed the challan only against co-accused Lala Ram, however, no challan has been filed against the present petitioners. Before the trial Court, complainant Mana Ram appeared as PW.2 and stated that petitioner No.1 Tikmaram abused him indicating his caste and thereafter inflicted a lathi blow on his forehead, upon which he fell down. Thereafter, co-accused Raju and Lala Ram caught hold him and also inflicted injuries. All the three accused abused him indicating his caste. With the intervention of Jeeva and Tikma S/o Majna Ram, he was saved. He was threated by the accused-petitioners and co-accused Lala Ram not to lodge the report. PW.3 Tikmaram S/o Majna Ram also supported the statement of PW.2 complainant Mana Ram and made a similar statement. 4. On perusal of the statements of PW. 2 and PW.3, the trial Court came to the conclusion that apart from co-accused Lala facing trial, it appears from the evidence that the present petitioners have also committed the offence for which they could be tried together with co-accused Lala Ram and accordingly, the petitioners were arraigned as accused and put to trial along with co-accused Lala Ram facing trial. 5. On close scrutiny of the evidence, it is more than clear that right form the lodging of first information report, the complainant implicated the present petitioners along with co-accused Lala Ram as assailants. At this stage, there is no reason to disbelieve the first information report and the statements of PW . 5. On close scrutiny of the evidence, it is more than clear that right form the lodging of first information report, the complainant implicated the present petitioners along with co-accused Lala Ram as assailants. At this stage, there is no reason to disbelieve the first information report and the statements of PW . 2 and PW . 4 implicating the petitioners in the commission of the crime. In the circumstances, therefore, I do not find any reason to take a different view from one taken by the trial Court. 6. Consequently, the revision petition lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed accordingly. The trial Court shall expedite the trial. The stay petition also stands dismissed.