JUDGMENT 1. - Since the controversy involved in both the matters i.e. criminal appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan as also criminal revision filed by complainant, involve common question of facts and law, hence both the matters are being decided by this common judgment. 2. The State of Rajasthan has preferred this. appeal under section 378(i)(iii) Cr.P.C. and the complainant has preferred this criminal revision under section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of acquittal dated 23.09.2000 (for short 'the learned trial Court') in Sessions case No. 40/98, whereby it acquitted all the accused respondents for the alleged offences. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Abdul Kalam lodged a verbal report on 12.02.89 at P.S. Kotwali, Bundi to this effect that about 9.30 PM he was standing on the shop of Mangam Panwala. Nanda and Magan were present on the shop and one Nisar was standing nearby. At that time accused person Munna Joshi, one Sardar and one boy, who could be identified by him, but whose name was not known to him, came there. Munna Joshi and Sardar were alleged to be armed with Kattas and the body who was accompanying them was having stick. On arriving there, Munna Joshi is alleged to have told the informant that he should not do excessive dadagiri in Kagzi Devra, otherwise he will do away with him. In the meantime, Suhel Kaisar alleged to have reached there. As soon as Suhel Kaisar reached there the body, who was accompanying the accused Munna Joshi, inflicted a blow on his back with his stick. Thereupon, Suhel Kaiser ran away from there and the Sardar who was accompanying the accused Munna Joshi fired a shot towards the informant but he escaped. Suhel Kaisar had run towards his house, but all the 3 persons chased him and accused Munna Joshi fired a shot towards him with the intention of kill him. The informant further alleged that he was also running behind the accused persons. Thereafter, accused Munna Joshi and Sardar were alleged to have fired 5 shots in the course of running. As soon as Suhel Kaisar entered Mouthi Tola Gall, accused Munna Joshi cried aloud that he should be caught and should be killed. The informant further alleged that he was also running behind the accused persons. Thereafter, accused Munna Joshi and Sardar were alleged to have fired 5 shots in the course of running. As soon as Suhel Kaisar entered Mouthi Tola Gall, accused Munna Joshi cried aloud that he should be caught and should be killed. Thereupon accused persons stopped all of a sudden and turned behind, whereupon the accused Munna Joshi fired a shot which hit him on the chest and Suhel Kaisar fell down. Thereafter all the accused persons ran towards the temple of Melia Saheb. At that time innumerable persons of the locality had collected. Suhel Kaisar had become unconscious on the scene of occurrence. 4. The police on the basis of this verbal report, registered an FIR No. 27/89 for the offence under sections 307 and 34 IPC. 5. The police after usual investigation, submitted challan against the accused respondents before learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate. Bundi, 6. The learned trial Court read over the charges against accused respondents for the offence under sections 307, 326 and 324 IPC. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried in the matter. 7. The prosecution in support of its case produced as many as 23 witnesses and certain documents were got exhibited. 8. Thereafter the statements of the accused respondents under Section 313 Cr.PC. were recorded. In defence the accused respondents produced as many as two witnesses and certain documents were got exhibited. 9. After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court vide its judgment to dated 23.09.2000 acquitted the accused respondents from the aforesaid offences. 10. Aggrieved with the judgment of acquittal dated 23.09.2000 passed by learned trial Court. the State of Rajasthan has preferred the instant appeal and the complainant has preferred this criminal revision. 11. In this appeal & criminal (revision) it has been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant that the learned trial Court has not considered the statements of the prosecution witnesses properly. He has further contended that the learned trial Court has wrongly acquitted the accused respondents. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 23.09.2000 passed by learned trial Court is erroneous one and is liable to be quashed and set aside. 12. He has further contended that the learned trial Court has wrongly acquitted the accused respondents. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 23.09.2000 passed by learned trial Court 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 of acquittal 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 PW 2 Abdul Rehman, PW 2 Kalam, PW 10 Shanker Singh, PW 11 Raju, PW 15 Vijay Singh, PW 16 Magan Lal, PW 17 Anil Kumar Jain, PW 18 Rooprai, PW 19 Jitendra Kumar and PW 20 Nasir Ali, have not supported the case of the prosecution and thus have been declared hostile. PW 6 Ramesh Dutt Sharma has also not supported the case of the prosecution. He submits that conduct of the independent witnesses is abnormal. He submits that the prosecution has changed the place of occurrence. He submits that the sanction by the prosecution under section 3/25, Arms Act is not clear. He submits that most of the prosecution witnesses have made improvements, omissions and contradictions in their testimony. Thus, the impugned Judgment passed by learned trial Court dated 23.09.2000 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. 14. Having gone through the impugned judgment 23.9.2000 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 respondents.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." 15. 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." 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. 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, the State appeal as also criminal revision fail and the same is hereby dismissed, after confirming the judgment of acquittal dated 23.09.2000 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, S.No. 2, Bundi (Rajasthan) in Sessions Case No. 40/1998.State Appeal and Private Revision Dismissed. *******