JUDGMENT 1. - The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 28.3.2000 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahpura, District Jaipur in Criminal Case No. 489/95 by which the accused-respondents have been acquitted from the offence under Sections 148, 341, 323, 324/149 and 325/149 IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that PW-1 Boduram has submitted a written report at police station Shahpura in which he stated that at about 6.30 AM while he was going for natural call in his field, accused respondent No. 1 Bhagguram Bhairunram obstructed me and hit me and I fell down. The other accused respondents came armed with lathies, Bhawari and started beatings to me. Sultan inflicted injury and Godu by Barchhi, Bhanwar by Phawari. Upon the said report, the police registered a case for the offence u/s. 147, 341 and 323 IPC. After investigation the police has filed challan against the accused-respondents before the concerned learned trial court and the learned trial Court has framed charge against accused respondent Sultan for 15 the offence under sections 148, 341, 323, 325, 324/149 IPC, against accused respondent Bhanwar Lal for the offence u/s. 148, 341, 323, 324, 325/149 IPC, against accused respondents Bhagwan Sahai, Bhaurulal, Arjunlal, Ramautar and Bhanwari Lal for the offence u/s. 148, 341, 323, 324/149 and 325/149 IPC. The charges were read over and explained to the accused-respondents, but they pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. 3. During trial the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 8 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter the statements of the accused-respondents under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. 4. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial court vide its judgment dated 28.3.2000 acquitted the accused-respondent from the offence charged against them. 5. Aggrieved from the aforesaid order and judgment of the learned trial court dated 28.3.2000, the State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal. 6. 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 and without appreciating the prosecution witnesses acquitted the accused-respondents from the charge framed against them. He further submitted that the learned trial court has acquitted the accused respondents on the basis that Dr. Chandrakant and Dr. Rakesh (Medical Jurist) did not appear for evidence. He further submitted that the learned trial court has acquitted the accused respondents on the basis that Dr. Chandrakant and Dr. Rakesh (Medical Jurist) did not appear for evidence. He further submitted that in the absence of the above evidence, it cannot be said that the incident did not take place and evidence of the eye witnesses is enough to connect the accused respondents with crime. Hence, the impugned judgment and order dated 28.3.2000 is erroneous one and should be set aside. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel Shri Deshraj Kalwania appearing on behalf the accused-respondents has submitted that the learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and after appreciating the prosecution witnesses the learned trial court has rightly acquitted the accused respondents. He has further contended that there is major contradiction in the statements of prosecution witnesses and no interference is required with the impugned judgment and order of the learned trial court in this appeal. He has further drawn attention of this Court that the star witnesses of the prosecution Dr. Chandrakant and Dr. Rakesh (Medical Jurists) have not been produced by the prosecution. Learned is counsel placed reliance in Ram Sahai v. State of Rajasthan, 1997 RCC 469 in his support. He has also contended that the accused respondents are facing mental agony and trial from last several years which is tantamount to punishment. 8. 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. 9. Having gone through the impugned judgment dated 28.3.2000 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 respondent for the offence for which who has been charged and the learned trial court was right in acquitting the accused respondents. I have no 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. 11. I have no 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. 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 413 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 the 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 28.3.2000 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahpura, District Jaipur.State Appeal Dismissed. *******