JUDGMENT 1. - The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal under Section 378 1 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of acquittal dated 12.7.1999 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City (for short 'the learned trial Court') in Sessions Case No. 11/96, whereby he acquitted the accused respondents for the offence under sections 498A and 306 IPC. 2. As per the case of the prosecution, brief facts of the case are that on 24.5.94 complainant Munshilal submitted a written report before S.H.O., Gangapur City to this effect that one women is lying in front of the shop, may be she is dead and for this he had made a telephone call. Upon this information, the matter section 174 Cr.P.C. was sent and upon this case No. 7/94 was registered. Police made panchnama of unknown deceased body. Post-mortem of dead body was conducted. Certain gold and silver articles were seized from the dead body of the deceased. 3. On 27.5.1994 Bharosi submitted a written report to the SHO Gangapur City to this effect that before near about 3 years ago, he solemnized marriage of his daughter Maya and he gave dowry as per his status. Father-in-law (Shenker), husband (Dharam Singh) and mother-in-law used to give beating because of not giving proper dowry. These persons outed her from the house after giving beating. On 25.5.94 complainant came to know about the death of his daughter. 4. On the basis of this written report, the police registered FIR No. 254/1994 for the offence under section 304-B IPC. 5. The police after usual investigation submitted challan under sections 306 and 498A IPC against the accused respondents. 6. The learned trial Court read over the charge against the accused respondents for the offence under Sections 498A and 306 IPC, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried in the matter. 7. Prosecution in support of its case produced as many as 11 witnesses and certain documents were got exhibited. 8. Thereafter the statement of the accused-respondents under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded but they did not produce any evidence in defence. 9. After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 12.7.1999 acquitted the accused-respondents holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence against the accused respondents. 10. Aggrieved with the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 12.7.1999 passed by learned trial Court. 9. After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 12.7.1999 acquitted the accused-respondents holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence against the accused respondents. 10. Aggrieved with the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 12.7.1999 passed by learned trial Court. the State of Rajasthan has preferred the instant appeal. 11. In this appeal it has been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the learned trial Court has not properly considered the statements of the prosecution witnesses. He has further contended that the learned trial Court has wrongly acquitted the accused respondents. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 12.7.1999 is erroneous one and is liable to be quashed and set aside. 12. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused-respondents has submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court is based on the correct appreciation of evidence and aft-a-giving cogent reasons, the learned trial court has acquitted the accused respondents. He submits that PW 6 Ram Niwas and PW 9 Jagmohan have not supported the case of the prosecution and thus, have been declared hostile. Thus, impugned Judgment dated 12.7.1992 passed by learned trial Court need no interference of this Court. 13. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the accused-respondents and also gone through the record of the case as also the Judgment referred to above. 14. Having gone through the impugned judgment 12.7.1999 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 respondents.The court attention was drawn on the following judgment of the Hon'bie Supreme Court : Umrao v. State of Haryana & Ors., 2006(2) WLC (SC) Cri. 98 : 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." 15. 98 : 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." 15. 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 respondents for the offence for which they have been convicted and the learned trial Court was right in acquitting the accused respondents by holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence against him. 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. 16. 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. 17. Accordingly, this appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan fails and the same is hereby dismissed, after confirming the judgment of acquittal dated 12.7.1999 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapurcity, in Sessions Case No. 10 996.State Appeal Allowed. *******