JUDGMENT: K.SURENDER, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellants/accused questioning the judgment of conviction dated 08.11.2011 in S.C.No.74 of 2009 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SC’s & ST’s (POA) Act-Cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mahbubnagar, for the offences under Sections 324 and 323 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 (for short ‘SC/ST Act). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent-State. Perused the record. 3. Briefly, the case of the injured who are P.W.1 and P.W.2 is that while they were cutting trees in the land of one Mahipal Reddy on 17.06.2009, both the accused went there and abused them in the name of their caste. A-2 beat P.W.2 with chappal and A-1 took out a sickle and beat P.W.1 on his head causing bleeding injuries. Other witnesses gathered at the scene. Thereafter, P.W.1 went to the Police Station and lodged a complaint/Ex.P.1. On the basis of the said complaint, charge sheet was filed for the above mentioned offences. Accordingly, the learned Special Judge framed charges. 4. The learned Special Judge having examined the witnesses P.Ws.1 to 10 and marking Exs.P.1 to P.6, found that both the accused are found guilty for the offences alleged. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the trial Court had committed an error in convicting them under SC & ST (POA) act, when P.W.1 and P.W.2 had specifically stated that both the accused were strangers to them. In the event of accused being strangers, the question of having knowledge of caste of P.W.1 and P.W.2 does not arise. However, learned Sessions Judge found abusing P.W.1 and P.W.2 in the name of the caste would attract the said offence. 6. Learned counsel further argued that neither the alleged sickle which was used to beat P.W.1 was seized nor the chappal which was used by A-2 to beat P.W.2 was seized. In the absence of seizure of material objects, it casts any amount of doubt on the prosecution case being correct. 7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there is no reason as to why P.W.1 and P.W.2 would make out a false case against the accused unless the incident happened. In the absence of seizure of material objects, it casts any amount of doubt on the prosecution case being correct. 7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there is no reason as to why P.W.1 and P.W.2 would make out a false case against the accused unless the incident happened. In the complaint, it is mentioned that it was these appellants who had assaulted and attacked P.W.1 and P.W.2 and complaint is specific regarding the accused beating P.W.1 and P.W.2. In the said circumstances, the findings of the learned Special Judge are on the basis of the record. 8. The offence under Section 3(1) (x) of SC/ST Act reads as under:- “Intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view.” 9. To attract an offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST Act, there has to be an intention to insult or intimidate or humiliate a person for the reason of belonging to SC/ST caste, within public view. 10. The accused should have knowledge that the persons belong to SC/ST caste and for such reason, there has to be deliberate and intentional insult. In the present case, when it is specifically stated by P.W.1 and P.W.2 that the accused are strangers, the question of accused intentionally abusing P.W.1 and P.W.2 in the name of caste does not arise. For the said reason, the finding of the learned Special Judge for the offence under Section 3(1) (x) of SC/ST Act recorded against both the appellants has to be set aside. 11. In the complaint/Ex.P.1, it is specifically mentioned that A-1 had assaulted P.W.2 with sickle, however, the Doctor found two simple injuries. Learned counsel argued that the said injuries would be possible by falling on rough surface. However, no reason was shown as to why P.W.1 and P.W.2 would lodge a false complaint against the accused. Though it is stated that P.W.3 and the accused were on inimical terms for the reason of pending civil disputes, the assault by A-1 is convincing. Accordingly, conviction under Section 323 of IPC against A-1 is confirmed. 12. Insofar as A-2 is concerned, except making bald allegation of beating with chappal, no MLC was produced and chappal was also not seized. In the said circumstances, benefit of doubt is extended to A-2. 13. Accordingly, conviction under Section 323 of IPC against A-1 is confirmed. 12. Insofar as A-2 is concerned, except making bald allegation of beating with chappal, no MLC was produced and chappal was also not seized. In the said circumstances, benefit of doubt is extended to A-2. 13. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed setting aside the conviction against A-2 and A-2 stands acquitted. However, against A-1, conviction under Section 323 of IPC only is confirmed. Since the offence is punishable upto one year and fine and no minimum sentence is prescribed, due to lapse of time, this Court deems it appropriate to set aside sentence of imprisonment and maintain the fine component only. Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment against A-1 is set aside and fine component is maintained. 14. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.