JUDGMENT 1. - The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 16.01.1997 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jaipur Distt. Jaipur (hereinafter to be referred as `the learned trial court') in Criminal Case No. 641/94 by which he acquitted the accused-respondents for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 447, 323, 354, 326 and 326/149 I.PC. 2. In brief, the facts of the case are as under: (i) Complainant Kalyan Singh (PW-1) lodged a written report (Ex.P-1) in Police Station Sanganer Sadar alleging therein that he has in his possession an allotted land of Khasra No. 1087 and 1085 total Rakba 8 Bigha. When he alongwith his wife and his son Rajendra went to his field for cleaning and ploughing the field then accused-respondents armed with Kulhari, Farsi and Lathies came and attacked them with an intention to kill them. (ii) He has specifically named in his report, accused respondent No. 1 Mangal Nath and accused-respondent No. 3 Ganpat and he has also stated in his report two unknown persons. They gave a brutal injury to them. The accused-persons gave Kulhari war (sic blow) upon his head and upon escaping he sustained injury upon his hand and his hand broken and his wife also sustained injury on back, leg and hand by a sharp edged weapon. The accused-respondents also tried to rape his wife. (iii) Upon the said information the police registered the case under Sections 147, 148, 447, 323, 354, 326 and 326/149 IPC and started investigation against the accused-respondents and started investigation. After investigation the police filed a challan against the accused-respondent before the learned trial court. The learned trial court framed the charge mentioned hereinabove against the accused-respondents. (iv) The charges were read over and explained to the accused-respondents who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. (v) During trial the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 10 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. (vi) Thereafter the statements of the accused-respondents under Section 313 CR.PC. were recorded. The accused-respondents also produced one defence witness namely DW-1 Banshidhar. (vii) After conclusion of the trial the learned trial court vide its judgment dated 16.01.1997 acquitted the accused-respondents from the offence charged against them holding interalia that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused-respondents. 3. were recorded. The accused-respondents also produced one defence witness namely DW-1 Banshidhar. (vii) After conclusion of the trial the learned trial court vide its judgment dated 16.01.1997 acquitted the accused-respondents from the offence charged against them holding interalia that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused-respondents. 3. Aggrieved against the judgment and order of the learned trial court dated 16.01.1997, the State of Rajasthan has preferred the instant appeal. 4. In this appeal it has been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the learned trial court has not considered the statements of the prosecution witnesses properly. He has further contended that the learned trial court has wrongly observed that prosecution has failed to prove the offence against the accused-respondents and thus, the impugned judgment and order dated 16.01.1997 is erroneous one and should be set aside. 5. He has further contended that the learned trial court has not given the proper attention on the prosecution witnesses who has not been declared hostile. 6. 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 correct appreciation of evidence and after giving cogent reasons, the learned trial court has acquitted the accused respondents from the charges framed against them and thus, no interference is required with the impugned judgment and order of the learned trial court in this appeal. 7. He has also contended that the main and star witness of the prosecution namely PW-4 Mool Chand who is the eye witness, PW-5 Lalaram (eye witness) and PW-6 Shankar Lal who is the witness of recovery is also declared hostile. He has also contended that the accused respondents is facing the trial from last 14 years which is tentamounts to punishment. 8. I have heard leaned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel i for the accused-respondents and also gone through the record of the case. 9. Having gone through the impugned judgment dated 16.01.1997 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 respondent. 10. 9. Having gone through the impugned judgment dated 16.01.1997 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 respondent. 10. Looking to the evidence just discussed above, it can easily be said that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused-respondents for the offence for which they have been charged and the learned trial court was right in acquitting the accused 1 respondents. I have not reason to dissent from the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial court, as they appear to be reasonable and plausible in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned trial court has given cogent reason in acquitting the accused respondents.The court attention was drawn on the following judgment of the 1 Hon'ble Supreme Court: Umrao v. State of Haryana & Ors., SC 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." 11. 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 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, 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 passed by the learned trial court and this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, this appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan fails and the same is hereby dismissed, after confirming the judgment and order of acquittal dated 16.01.1997 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, No. 1, Jaipur Distt., Jaipur. The accused-respondents are on bail and they need not to surrender. Their bail bond stand discharged.Appeal dismissed. *******