JUDGMENT 1. - The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 30th July, 1984, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar in Criminal Case No. 39/79 by which he has acquitted the accused respondents from the offence under Sections 326, 325, 324, 323/34 IPC.2-3. The prosecution case in -brief giving rise to this appeal are as under- On 31.10.1978, at about 9 P.M., Gangadhar and his friend Likhma Ram sent by Mangla for calling his brother-in-law Bhagwana from the village Bidsar. While Gangadhar and Likhma were going, in the way when they reached in the agriculture field of Tan Sukh Ram, the accused respondents appeared from the back side and attacked upon Gangadhar by lati, knife and Farsi etc. Gangadhar escaped from the accused respondents by intervening Ram Lal and Harikishan. 4. Police registered a case for the offence under Sections 326, 325, 324, 323 and started investigation.5. After investigation, police filed a challan before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Sikar has framed charges against the accused respondents under Sections 307, 326, 325, 324, 323 read with Section 34 IPC. The charges were read over and explained to accused respondents. They denied the charges and claimed trial.6. During trial, the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 19 witnesses and some documents got exhibited. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar through his judgment and order dated 30 July, 1984 acquitted the accused respondents of the charges framed against them holding interalia that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused respondents.7. Aggrieved from the impugned order dated 30.7.1984 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar, the State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal before this Court.8. In this appeal, it has been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar has not considered the statements of prosecution witness properly and wrongly disbelieved the statement of prosecution witnesses. Thus, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 30th July, 1984 is erroneous one and the same should be set-aside.9. The learned Public Prosecutor has further contended that the learned trial court has not properly appreciated the statement of P.W. 2 Kishan Ram, PW. 3 Hari Kishan, Ram Lal P.W. 4, Sukh Dev Ram Pw. Thus, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 30th July, 1984 is erroneous one and the same should be set-aside.9. The learned Public Prosecutor has further contended that the learned trial court has not properly appreciated the statement of P.W. 2 Kishan Ram, PW. 3 Hari Kishan, Ram Lal P.W. 4, Sukh Dev Ram Pw. 5, and Daya Ram P.W. 9. He further contended that the trial court has also not considered the statement P.W. 7 Likha Ram who has made his statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused respondents has submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial court is based on the proper appreciation of evidence and after giving cogent reasons, the learned trial court has acquitted the accused respondents of the charges framed against them. Thus, no interference is called for with the impugned judgment and order in this appeal. He further contended that there are number of contradictions in the statements of the witnesses especially, P.W. 6 Mangla has declared hostile. It was also contended by learned counsel for the accused respondents that the FIR was delayed and for that purpose, the learned counsel has placed reliance upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ram Jag & Others v. State of U.P., reported in AIR 1974 SC. p. 606 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under "Whether the delay is so long as to throw a cloud of suspicious on the seeds of the prosecution case must depend upon a variety of factors. Even a long delay can be condoned if the witnesses have no motive for implicating the accused. On the other hand, prompt filing of the report is not an unmistakable guarantee of the truthfulness of the version of the prosecution. It is true that witnesses cannot be called upon to explain every hour's delay in filing information and a common sense view has to be taken in ascertaining whether the First Information report was lodged after an undue delay so as to afford enough scope for manipulating evidence." 11. It is true that witnesses cannot be called upon to explain every hour's delay in filing information and a common sense view has to be taken in ascertaining whether the First Information report was lodged after an undue delay so as to afford enough scope for manipulating evidence." 11. The Hon'ble Apex Court further in a decision in case of (Dhulia Kali v. State of Tamilnadu) reported in 1972 Unreported Cases p. 760 (763 Para-12) held as under "The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report to the police in respect of commission of an offence is to obtain early o information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of eye witnesses present at the scene of occurrence. Delay in lodging the first information report quite often results in embellishment which he is a creature of after thought. On 5 account of delay, he report not only gets benefit of the advantage of spontaneity, danger crept in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or connected story as a result of deliberation and consultation. It is, therefore, essential that the delay in the lodging of the first information report should be satisfactorily explained." 12. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor, learned counsel for the accused respondents and gone through the record of the case. I have also perused the impugned judgment and order dated 30.7.1984 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar. I find that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar has given cogent reason for acquitting the accused respondents.13. A bare perusal of the impugned judgment and order dated 30.7.1984, it will reveal that the star witness one Likhma Ram P.W. 7 has denied about the statement of Section 164 Cr.P.C. which he deposed before oo the learned Magistrate on 17.11.1978, when he was deposing his statement before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar in the trial. For that purpose, an application on behalf of the prosecution was also filed for the offence under Section 193 IPC against Likhma Ram (PW. 7) against whom a notice under Section 344 Cr.P.C. was also issued by the trial court.14. For that purpose, an application on behalf of the prosecution was also filed for the offence under Section 193 IPC against Likhma Ram (PW. 7) against whom a notice under Section 344 Cr.P.C. was also issued by the trial court.14. In my considered opinion, the reasoning's given by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar for not relying upon the statement of prosecution witnesses cannot be said to be erroneous one.15. The court attention has also drawn upon a case which has been decided by the Apex Court of this Country in Umrao Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors., reported in 2006(2) WLC (SC) Cri. 98: (2006) 10 SCC p. 145 , wherein their Lordships of Apex Court has held as under "It is now well settled that if two views are possible, the appellate court should not interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the court below." 16. It may be stated herein that in appeal against acquittal though powers of the High Court to reassess the evidence and to reach its own conclusion are as extensive as in an appeal against an order of conviction, yet as a rule of prudence, it should always give proper weight and consideration to the views of the trial court as to the credibility of the witness, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt and thus, High Court should not ordinarily disturb the order of acquittal. Therefore, this court does not want to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 30.7.1984 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar and this appeal is liable to be dismissed.17. For the reasons indicated herein above, the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan fails and the same is hereby dismissed after confirming the judgment and order of acquittal dated 30.7.1984 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar. The accused respondents are on bail and need not to surrender. The bail bonds stand discharged.Appeal Dismissed. *******