JUDGMENT 1. - The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal under Section 378(i)(iii) Cr.RC. against the judgment of acquittal dated 25.04.1992 passed by learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur District, Jaipur (for short `the learned trial Court') in criminal case No. 24/1984, whereby he acquitted the accused respondent for the offence under sections 279, 337 and 304A IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that an information was given at PS Amer on 26.1.1984 at about 1.55 PM that at Kunda Bye-pass a motor cycle collided with a bus. On this information Mr. H.C. Ram Gopal and other persons went to Kunda by bus where Kailash Chand submitted a written report alleging therein that bus No. RRB 1990 which was going to Delhi from Jaipur and when it was passing through nearby village Kunda Mr. Nem Singh and Mool Chandra were going to Jaipur on motor-cycle No. RRG 5642 after taking petrol from the pump near about 1.30 PM. The bus collided with the motor cycle being driven rashly and negligently. Nem Singh died at the spot and Mool Singh was sent to the Hospital. It was also written in the report that the driver disclosed his name as Shri Bhagwan. The investigation was made and the case was registered under sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC. 3. After usual investigation, the police submitted challan for the offence u/Ss. 279, 337 and 304-A IPC. 4. The learned trial court read over the charges to the accused respondent. The accused respondent did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried in the matter. 5. The prosecution in support of its case produced as many as 10 witnesses and certain documents were got exhibited. 6. Thereafter the statement of the accused-respondent under Section 313 Cr.RC. was recorded. 7. After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 25.4.1992 acquitted the accused-respondent from the aforesaid offence. 8. Aggrieved with the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 25.4.1992 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 complainant. He has further contended that the learned trial Court has wrongly acquitted the accused respondent. 9. In this appeal it has been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the learned trial Court has not considered the statement of complainant. He has further contended that the learned trial Court has wrongly acquitted the accused respondent. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 25.4.1992 is erroneous one and should be quashed and set aside. 10. Per-contra, the learned counsel for the accused-respondent submits that the impugned judgment passed by 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. Presence of PW 1 Laxminarain, PW 2 Hanuman, PW 3 Kailash and PW 5 Inder Singh at the place of alleged occurrence is not trust-worthy. The Investigating Officer has not stated anything that in whose presence such site-plan has been prepared by him and no conclusion can be arrived from such site plan. Thus, the impugned Judgment dated 25.4.1992 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 as also the Judgment referred to above. 12. Having gone through the impugned judgment 25.4.1992 passed by the learned trial Court, I find that the iearned trial court has given cogent reasons for not finding the case of the prosecution proved against accused respondents. 13. The court attention was drawn on the following judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court: Umrao v. State of Haryana & Ors., 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. 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. 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 25.4.1992 passed by learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur District, Jaipur in Criminal Misc. case No. 24/84.Appeal dismissed. *******