JUDGMENT 1. - The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 20.09.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Ajmer in Sessions Case No. 32/2001 (107/1998) by which he was acquitted the accused-respondent from the offence under Sections 307 IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 10.05.1998 Yogesh Kumar PW.9 submitted a written report Ex.P-6 in Police Station Alwar Gate, Ajmer in which he has stated that today at about 6 PM he was working in the office of Scout, near this office Loko servant Ajay's family is lived and suddenly, Ajay Pal's brother Raju came there and inflicted knife blows on Ajay Pal's wife and ran away from the spot. 3. Upon the said report, the police has registered a FIR No. 131/1998 under Section 324, 452, 307 IPC and started the investigation. After investigation the police filed a challan against the accused-respondent before the Court of Magistrate concerned, thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of District & Sessions Judge, Ajmer and same was transferred to the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Ajmer for trial. The learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Ajmer has framed charge against the accused respondent for the offence under Section 307 IPC. 4. The learned trial Judge has framed the charges mentioned hereinabove against the accused-respondent which were read over and explained to the accused-respondent who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. During trial the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 10 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. 6. Thereafter the statements of the accused-respondent under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. 7. After hearing both the sides, the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Ajmer vide its judgment dated 20.09.2001 acquitted the accused-respondent from the offence charged against him. 8. Aggrieved from the aforesaid order and judgment of the learned trial court dated 20.09.2001 the State of Rajasthan has preferred this 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 properly. It has further drawn the attention of this Court on the Statement of PW. 9 Yogesh Kumar Verma, who has been declared hostile and his statement should be considered for the purpose of conviction. It has further drawn the attention of this Court on the Statement of PW. 9 Yogesh Kumar Verma, who has been declared hostile and his statement should be considered for the purpose of conviction. He has further drawn the attention of this Court on the statement of PW. 7 Nand Kishore, according to him some of the part of the statement of Yogesh Kumar Verma has been confirmed by the PW. 7 Nand Kishore. According to him they are contrary from each other although the witness PW. 9 Yogesh Kumar Verma has been declared hostile. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel Mr. Ravi Kasliwal appearing on behalf the accused-respondent has submitted that the star witness of the prosecution who lodged the First Information Report has been declared hostile. He has further contended that the other witnesses of the prosecution having major contradiction in their statements. 9 Yogesh Kumar Verma has been declared hostile. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel Mr. Ravi Kasliwal appearing on behalf the accused-respondent has submitted that the star witness of the prosecution who lodged the First Information Report has been declared hostile. He has further contended that the other witnesses of the prosecution having major contradiction in their statements. He has further drawn attention of this Court on Para No. 21 of the judgment produce as under : " mHk; i{k }kjk izLrqr dh xbZ uthjksa o nyhyksa ds ifjizs{; esa i=koyh ij tks lk{; vfHk;kstu }kjk is'k dh xbZ gS mlesa vkgrk Jherh dkark vfHk;ksru lk{kh la[;k 6 dk tks c;ku gS og ijLij fojks/kkHkklh gSA vfHk;kstu lk{kh la[;k 7 uUnfd'kksj tks fd vkgrk dk HkkbZ gS] dk c;ku mlds iwoZ esa fn, x, c;ku 161&n0iz0la0 ds c;ku izn'kZ Mh0 1 ls lefFkZr ugha gS rFkk izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ntZ djkus okyk O;fDr vfHk;kstu lk{kh la[;k 9 ;ksxs'k dqekj mldh mifLFkfr dks lansgizn crkrk gS rFkk ftl LFkku ij ;ksxs'k dqekj lks jgk Fkk ml LFkku ls ?kVukLFky ugha fn[kuk vfHk;kstu lk{kh la[;k 6 Jherh dkark Lohdkj djrh gSA vfHk;kstu lk{kh la[;k 9 ;ksxs'k dqekj 'kekZ ftlus izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ntZ djokbZ gS] og Loa; vfHk;qDr dks igpkuus ls budkj djrk gS vkSj uD'kk ekSdk essa tgkWa mldh mifLFkfr n'kkZbZ gS] og LFkku ?kVukLFky ls fn[kuk lEHko ugha gksuk izdV gksrk gS vkSj xokg ?kVukLFky ugha fn[kuk Hkh ekurk gSA blds lkFk tks jsyos lqj{kk cy ds tokuksa dk ekSds ij vkuk dgk x;k gS] muesa ls jruyky ?kVuk dk leFkZu ugha djrk gS vkSj fdlh vU; dks U;k;ky; esa is'k ugha fd;k x;k gSA tks cjkenxh pkdw dh dh xbZ gS og pkdw vkgrk }kjk crk, x, pkdw ls vkdkj esa esy ugha [kkrk gSA cjkenxh [kqys LFkku ls dh xbZ gS ,oa cjke'kqnk pkdw ij dksbZ jDr vkfn ds fu'kkukr vkfn ugha ik, x, gSaA vkgrk o vfHk;qDr ds e/; iwoZ esa ijLij eqdnesckth py jgh FkhA ,slh lwjr esa xokgku ds ijLij fojks/kkHkklh c;kukr rFkk lansgizn cjkenxh ds vk/kkj ij vfHk;qDr ds }kjk vkgrk ds pksVsa igqWapuk lk{; ls izekf.kr ugha gS vkSj ,slh lwjr esa tgkWa dfFkr ?kVuk ls igys ifjokfn;ksa us Lo;a mlds ifr }kjk ekjihV djus dk rF; izdV fd;k gS & vfHk;qDr }kjk ekjihV djus dk rF; vkSj Hkh lUnsgizn gks tkrk gSA " 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 dated 20.09.2001 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. 13. 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 he has been charged 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 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 respondent. 14. 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 obseived 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." 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 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. 16. 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 20.09,2001 passed by the learned Addl. 16. 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 20.09,2001 passed by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Ajmer. The accused-respondent is on bail and he need not to surrender. His bail bond stand discharged.Appeal Dismissed. *******