JUDGMENT 1. - The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal under section 378(i)(iii) Cr.P.C. against the judgment of acquittal dated 6.8.2003 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) S.No. 1, Kota, Jaipur (for short 'the learned trial Court') in Sessions Case No. 75/03, whereby it challenged the Judgment of acquittal for the offence under sections 307, 307/34 and 323 IPC.Brief facts of the case are that complainant Dharam Singh, submitted a parcha-bayan on 18.03.2003 to this effect that near about 6.00 PM Badrilal, Ramswaroop, Ramesh, Durgalal were going to their field by their own tractor for taking the wheat, at that time he was going from house to wash his mouth. When he refused not to do so then Ramswaroop, Ramesh, Sanjay and Durgalal after stopping the tractor and giving abusive language came to him and started beating with 'dansiya'. Ramswaroop and Sanjay inflicted injury on his person by 'dansiya'. When he cried then Pushpchand, Ramlal came, these persons also gave beating to him. 2. The police on the basis of this parcha-bayan, registered an FIR No. 26/2003 for the offence under sections 308, 341, 34 IPC and after investigation the Police submitted challan against the accused respondents. 3. The charges were read over and explained to the accused-respondents, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. Prosecution in support of its case produced as many as 10 witnesses and certain documents were got exhibited. 5. Thereafter the statements of the accused-respondents under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. In their defence, the accused respondents produced 2 witnesses and certain documents were got exhibited. 6. After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 06.08.2003 acquitted the accused-respondents for the offence under sections 307, 307/34 and 323 IPC. 7. Aggrieved with the judgment dated 06.08.2003 of acquittal passed by learned trial Court, the State of Rajasthan has preferred the instant appeal. 8. 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. He has further contended that the learned trial Court has wrongly acquitted the accused respondents. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 06.08.2003 is erroneous one and may be quashed and set aside. 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. He has further contended that the learned trial Court has wrongly acquitted the accused respondents. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 06.08.2003 is erroneous one and may be quashed and set aside. 9. 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 after giving cogent reasons, the learned trial Court has acquitted the accused respondents. He submits that the PW5 Brij Mohan has not supported the case of the prosecution and has thus been declared hostile. Lastly he submits that the most of the prosecution witnesses have made improvements, omissions and contradictions in their testimony. Thus, the impugned Judgment dated 06.08.2003 passed by the learned Trial Court need no interference of this Court. 10. 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. 11. Having gone through the impugned judgment 06.08.2003 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 for the aforesaid offences. 12. 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 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." 13. 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 aforesaid offences for which they have been convicted 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 the same appears to be reasonable and plausible in the facts and circumstances of the case. 14. 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. 14. 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, his court does not want to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court and this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 15. Accordingly, this appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan fails and the same is hereby dismissed, after confirming the judgment of acquittal against accused respondents for the offence under sections 307, 307/34 and 323 IPC, dated 06.08.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Kota in Sessions Case No, 75/2003.State Appeal Dismissed. *******