JUDGMENT 1. - The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 19.11.1997, passed by the Addl. District & Sessions Deeg, in Sessions Case No. 39/91 whereby he acquitted the accused respondent for the offence under Sections 304-B, 498-A & 306 IPC. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 23.04.1990 Tara Chand RW. 1 submitted a written report (Ex.R1) in police station Deeg alleging therein that that his sister Manju @ Minakshi was married to the accused Anil Kumar about 4-5 years ago. From the time of her marriage, the mother-in- law of Manju Smt. Kamla, her husband Anil Kumar, Krishan Kumar younger brother-in-law, Mahesh and Rajeev were beating to Manuu by demanding dowry. It stated that with the intervention of relatives, the dispute was resolved. Further, near about two years ago Rs. 10,000/- were given to them through his friend Shri Sudarshan, even then, the aforesaid persons gave beating to Smt. Manju. It was also alleged that on 22.04.1990 at the time of exhibiting Mahabharat serial in T.V. All these persons spread kerosene oil over the body of Manju and also she was burned. 3. Upon the aforesaid incident, the police registered a case (FIR No. 122/90) Ex.R 2 under Section 498-A & 304-B IPC and investigation started. After investigation, the police filed a challan under Section 498-A & 304-B IPC before the court of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deeg. Thereafter the case was committed to the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Deeg who framed charges for the offence under Section 498-A & 304-B & Section 306 IPC against the accused person and the charges were read over and explained to him who pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. 4. During trial, the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 15 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter, the statements of accused respondents were also recorded under Section 313 Cr.RC. and in defence one witness Kailash D.W. 1 was examined. 5. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial court through its judgment and order dated 19.11.1997, acquitted the accused respondent from the charges framed against him. 6. Thereafter, the statements of accused respondents were also recorded under Section 313 Cr.RC. and in defence one witness Kailash D.W. 1 was examined. 5. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial court through its judgment and order dated 19.11.1997, acquitted the accused respondent from the charges framed against him. 6. Aggrieved against the judgment and order of acquittal the learned trial court dated 19.11.1997, the State of Rajasthan has preferred the present appeal with the prayer to quash the same.In this appeal it has been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the learned trial court has not rightly appreciated the statement of prosecution witnesses properly. Therefore, the judgment is liable to be quashed and set-aside. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor has further contended that the learned trial court did not consider the statement of prosecution witnesses from which it was clearly established that the persons named in the FIR burnea the wife of the accused Smt. Manju after pouring kerosene oil. He contended that the trial court has not believed the statements of the prosecution witnesses. 8. He further contended that the statements of PW. 15 Dr. Hari Singh Yadav it is clearly established that on the body of Smt. Manju there was excessive IIIrd degree burn and the death was caused due to burn.He further contended that it is well established by the statements of the prosecution witnesses that the offence has rightly been charged against the accused respondent as he burned his wife. Therefore, the judgment of the learned trial court is liable to be quashed and set-aside. 9. Lastly he contended that in view of the above, the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the court below be quashed and set-aside and the accused respondent be punished for the offence as levelled against him. 10. On the other hand, M.K. Kaushik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused respondents has urged this Court that the learned trial court has given proper attention to the statement given by the prosecution witnesses in accordance with law and given cogent reason for acquitting the accused respondents after proper appreciation of evidence, hence, no interference is called for by this Court in the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Deeg.He has drawn attention of this court to the statement of star witness Mohan Lal PW. Sessions Judge, Deeg.He has drawn attention of this court to the statement of star witness Mohan Lal PW. 6 and Shankar Lal, P.W. 7 who were star witnesses of the prosecution have been declared hostile and they were only the material witnesses of the prosecution. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents further contended.that there are major contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses. 12. 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. 13. Having gone through the impugned judgment and order dated 19.11.1997, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Deeg, I find the learned trial court has given cogent reasons for holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence against the accused-respondent. In my considered opinion, the reasonings given by the learned trial Court cannot be said to be erroneous one. 14. The court attention was drawn on the following judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of Umrao Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors., reported in 2006 SC Vol. 10 Page 136 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: "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 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 respondent. I have no reason to disagree with 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. 16. I have no reason to disagree with 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. 16. In appeal, the 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 judges 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 passed by the court below. 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. 17. In view of the above, this appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan fails and the same is hereby dismissed by confirming the judgment and order of acquittal dated 19.11.1997, passed by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge Deeg. If the accused respondent is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand discharged.Appeal Dismissed. *******