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, involves 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.PC. against the judgment of acquittal dated 18.09.1999 passed by learned District & Sessions Judge, Baran (for short 'the learned appellate Court') in criminal case No. 21/99, whereby it quashed and set-aside the judgment of conviction dated 14.06.1999 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Baran (for short 'the learned trial Court') in criminal case No. 104/98 and acquitted the accused .respondents for the offence under sections 147, 148, 326, 323, 324/149 IPC. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Had Singh with his elder brother Kanhaiyalal and nephew Ramswaroop reached police station Seder and lodged the report and submitted that the accused respondents stopped them in the way and gave beating by deadly weapons and caused number of injuries. 4. The police on the above basis registered an FIR No. 195/95, for the offence under sections 147, 148, 149, 323 and 341 IPC and after investigation the police submitted challan against the accused respondents for the offence under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 326 IPC. 5. The learned trial Court read over the charge to the accused respondents. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried in the matter. 6. The prosecution in support of its case produced as many as 9 witnesses and certain documents were got exhibited.Thereafter the statement of the accused respondents under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. 7. After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 14.06.1999 convicted the accused respondents for the offence under sections 147, 148, 326, 323 and 324/149 IPC. 8. Aggrieved with the impugned judgment of conviction dated 14.06.1999 passed by learned trial Court, the accused respondents preferred a criminal appeal bearing No. 21/1999, before learned District & Sessions Judge, Baran (for short 'the learned appellate Court'). 9. 8. Aggrieved with the impugned judgment of conviction dated 14.06.1999 passed by learned trial Court, the accused respondents preferred a criminal appeal bearing No. 21/1999, before learned District & Sessions Judge, Baran (for short 'the learned appellate Court'). 9. The learned appellate Court after hearing both the parties and after considering the material available on record, quashed and set-aside the impugned Judgment passed by the learned trial Court and acquitted the accused respondents for the offence under sections 147, 148, 326, 323, 324/149 IPC. 10. The State of Rajasthan being aggrieved with the impugned Judgment of acquittal dated 18.09.1999 has preferred instant criminal appeal and complainant has preferred instant criminal revision before this Court. 11. In this appeal & revision it has been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant that the learned appellate Court has not considered the statements of the prosecution witnesses. He has further contended that the learned appellate Court has wrongly acquitted the accused respondents. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 18.09.1999 passed by learned appellate 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 passed by the learned appellate Court is based on the correct appreciation of evidence and after giving cogent reasons, the learned appellate Court has acquitted the accused respondents. He submits that PW 8 Mukut Bihari has not supported the case of the prosecution and has thus been declared hostile. He submits that most of the prosecution witnesses have made improvements, omissions and contradictions in their testimony. Thus, the impugned Judgment passed by learned appellate Court dated 18.09.1999 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 record of the case. 14. Having gone trough the impugned judgment 18.09.1999 passed by the learned appellate Court, I find that the learned appellate court has given cogent reasons by giving benefit of doubt to the 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. 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 (sic.-Appellate) Court was right in acquitting the accused respondents by giving them benefit of doubt. 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 18.09.1999 passed by learned District & Sessions Judge, Baran in Criminal appeal No. 21/1999.State Appeal Dismissed. *******