JUDGMENT 1. - The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 3.1.1997 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division) & Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur District Jaipur (for short 'the learned trial Court') in criminal case No. 180/1992, whereby he acquitted the accused respondent for the offence under sectior 354 IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 9.6.1991 Kr. Sushila by presenting herself submitted a report to this effect that she along-with her mother resides in Koli Mohalla and her father expired one and a half years ago from today. She further stated that today near-about 6.00 PM she was returning from well to her home after taking water. Chotu, who lives in her Mohalla, was coming from in-front. When he came near her, he (Chhotu) caught her breast and started to press tightly. The 'matka' which was on her head, fell down and broken. When she made a cry, then her 'Bhuwa' who was coming from the home and going to the well, escaped her from Chhotu. 3. The police on the basis of this written report registered an FIR for the offence under section 354 IPC. 4. The police after usual investigation submitted challan against the accused respondent. The charge was read over to the accused respondent, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried in the matter. 5. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 6 witnesses and certain documents were got exhibited. 6. Thereafter the statement of the accused-respondent under Section 313 Cr.PC. was recorded. 7. After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 3.1.1997 acquitted the accused-respondent by holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the aforesaid offence. 8. Aggrieved with the judgment dated 3.1.1997 of acquittal passed by learned trial Court, the State of Rajasthan has preferred the instant appeal. 9. In this appeal it has been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the learned trial Court has not considered the statement of the prosecution witnesses. He has further contended that the learned trial Court has wrongly acquitted the accused respondent by holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the case. Thus, the impugned judgment of s acquittal dated 3.1.1997 is erroneous one and should be quashed and set aside. 10. He has further contended that the learned trial Court has wrongly acquitted the accused respondent by holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the case. Thus, the impugned judgment of s acquittal dated 3.1.1997 is erroneous one and should be quashed and set aside. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused-respondent has submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court is based on the correct appreciation of evidence and after giving cogent reasons, the learned trial Court has acquitted the accused respondent by holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the aforesaid offence against the accused respondent. There is a great contradiction in between the testimony of prosecution witnesses. Prosecution witnesses have failed to prove that at the time of alleged incident, how many persons were there on the spot. The police neither recorded the statements of the prosecution witnesses nor it has produced the same. Thus, the impugned Judgment dated 3.1.1997 passed by the learned trial Court need no interference of this Court. 11. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the accused-respondent and also gone through the record of the case. 12. Having gone through the impugned judgment 3.1.1997 passed by the learned trial Court, I find that the learned-trial court has given cogent reasons for not finding the case of the prosecution proved against accused s respondent. 13. The court attention was drawn on the following judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court : Umrao v. State of Haryana & Ors., 2006(2) WLC (SC) Cri. 98 : SCC 2006 Vol. 10 Page 136 in which the Lordships of the Supreme Court has observed in para 26 that "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." 14. Looking to the evidence just discussed above, it can easily be said that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused respondent for the offence for which he has been convicted and the learned trial Court was right in acquitting the accused respondent by giving him benefit of doubt. I have no reason to dissent from the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court as the same appears to be reasonable and plausible in the facts and circumstances of the case. I have no reason to dissent from the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court as the same appears to be reasonable and plausible in the facts and circumstances of the case. 15. It may be stated 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 an order of conviction, yet as a rule of prudence, it should always give proper weightage 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, 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 passed by the learned trial Court and this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 16. Accordingly, this appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan fails and the same is hereby dismissed, after confirming the judgment of acquittal dated 3.1.1997 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division) & Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur District Jaipur in criminal case No. 180/1992.Appeal dismissed. *******