JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal appeal by the State of Rajasthan arises out of the judgment and order dated 12th February, 1988 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused respondents of the offences charged with. 2. Prosecution story, unfolded during trial, is that on 26.5.83 at 6.30 AM, Udai Singh Rathore, resident of A/66, Jai Ambey Nagar, Jaipur lodged first information report at Police Station, Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur alleging therein that in the night of 25.5.83 he was sleeping in the lawn of Plot No. AA5 belonging to Dr. Narain Dixit and Peeyuush, younger brother of Dr. Dixit was sleeping inside the house. At about 2.00 AM, 5 persons of the age group of 25-30 came there in a car and encircled his cot. The accused persons, at the instance of their weapons threatened him that he will be done to death if he raises an alarm. Thereafter, the accused took him to the Verandah and asked him to get open the door of the house. One of the accused knocked the door and raised voice that they are police personnel and need drinking water. Thereupon, Peeyush opened the door. Soon after opening the door, the accused caught hold Peeyush, took both of them to drawing room and demanded keys of Almirah. On being replied that they have no dead about the keys, the accused started opening the Almirah and went on searching the 3 house. After about an hour, the accused respondents locked both of them in the bath room. At about 3.30-4.00 AM, the accused left the place along with looted property in a car. The landlord and his wife were out of station for last 2-3 days and Udai Singh being their neighbour was guarding their house. The complainant and Peeyush could not state the details of the looted ; property except one record player and a tap recorder, which the accused had taken out from the Almirah in their presence. 3. On the basis of above report, the police registered a case and proceeded with the investigation. The complainant and Peeyush could not state the details of the looted ; property except one record player and a tap recorder, which the accused had taken out from the Almirah in their presence. 3. On the basis of above report, the police registered a case and proceeded with the investigation. Site plan was prepared, finger prints were taken, accused were arrested, looted articles were recovered on the information and at the instance of accused, Seizure/recovery memos were prepared and on completion of all necessary formalities including test identification parade of the accused, a charge sheet was presented against the accused in the court of Judicial Magistrate. Since the offence was triable by the court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the court of Sessions on 19.10.1983. 4. Learned Sessions Judge, considering the evidence and material placed before it, framed charges against the accused persons. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial. 5. To prove the charges, the prosecution examined 28 witnesses and got exhibited 36 documents. The accused were then examined under Section 313 Cr.PC. In their defence the accused also examined DW 1 Sanjeev Kumar ' and DW 2 Varandmal. 6. At the conclusion of trial, the learned trial court while convicting accused Vijendra Pal Singh, Rajesh @ Ramesh and Podulal @ Pahumal, acquitted the accused respondents of the offences charged with. Hence the present appeal against the acquittal of two accused respondents. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor has assailed the judgment of acquittal, inter-alia, on the ground the trial court has seriously erred in disbelieving the evidence with respect to test identification and the recovery of looted items. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that PW 2 Udai Singh and PW 4 Peeyush, in whose presence dacoity was committed, has rightly identified 1 accused Sham Pandit as one of the miscrients. Recovery of stolen property from the accused respondents has also been proved by PW 6 Dr. Narain Dixit and his wife PW 7 Yogmaya Dixit. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that prosecution has been able to prove participation of these two accused respondents in the commission of dacoity along with remaining 3 accused who have been found guilty and have been convicted by the learned trial court. 8. Narain Dixit and his wife PW 7 Yogmaya Dixit. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that prosecution has been able to prove participation of these two accused respondents in the commission of dacoity along with remaining 3 accused who have been found guilty and have been convicted by the learned trial court. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the accused respondents have vehemently argued that judgment of the trial court acquitting the accused respondents is based on proper appreciation of evidence. The trial court has recorded cogent and sufficient reasons ;or acquitting the accused respondents and, therefore, the judgment of acquittal calls for no interference and appeal against acquittal deserves to be dismissed. 9. I have heard, considered the rival submissions and carefully gene through the judgment of the trial court and the evidence on record. 10. So far as accused respondent Shyam Pandit is concerned, it nay be stated that nothing out of the looted property has been recovered from him. The only evidence against him was that of test identification parade, which has not been relied upon by the learned trial court and in my ; considered view, rightly so. A glance at the identification memo shows hat only PW 4 Peeyush Dixit, an eye witness of the incident has identified accused Shyam Pandit in the test identification Parade. Another eye witness, namely, PW 2 Udai Singh has not been able to identify him. It has come in evidence that eyes of accused Shyam Pandit were found to be brownish (Kajrari). Nothing has come on record that any person of brown eye was mixed in the identification parade. I have also gone through the statement of PW 20 Kapil Bhargave, Judicial Magistrate and it does not transpire from his statement that any person with brown eyes was mixed in the parade. Similar is the case of accused respondent Rajveer. Nothing has been recovered from him and the only witness, namely PW 2 Udai Singh has identified him in the parade and the another witness of the incident, namely PW 4 Peeyush has not identified him in the parade. It is thus clear that both the accused respondents have been identified by one witness and nothing has been recovered from their possession. Thus, it would not be safe to connect the accused respondents with the offence under Section 395 IPC on single identification. 11. It is thus clear that both the accused respondents have been identified by one witness and nothing has been recovered from their possession. Thus, it would not be safe to connect the accused respondents with the offence under Section 395 IPC on single identification. 11. Having scanned the evidence, it can easily be said that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts against the accused respondents for offence under Section 395 IPC. I have no reason to interfere with the findings of acquittal recorded by the trial court as the findings being based on proper appreciation of evidence. 12. It need be observed that in appeal against acquittal though powers of the High Court to reassess the evidence and to reach its own conclusions are as extensive as in an appeal against the order of conviction, yet as a rule of prudence it should always be given proper weight and consideration to the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused; the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt and thus, High Court should not ordinarily disturb the order of acquittal. It is well settled that even if two views are possible, the appellate court could not interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the court below. I find support from the law propounded by the Apex Court in Umrao Singh v. State of Haryana 2006(2) WLC (SC) Cri. 98 : (2006) 10 SCC 136 . In my considered view the learned trial court, having not relied upon the evidence of identification, has rightly acquitted the accused respondents. 13. In view of above, this court does not want to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court. The judgment acquitting the accused respondents deserves to be upheld. 14. For the reasons stated 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 12.2.1988 in criminal case No. 85/83 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur.Appeal Dismissed. *******