JUDGMENT 1. - The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated March 22, 1990 passed by the Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Class-I, Nawalgarh (Raj.) in case No. 96/84 by which he acquitted the accused-respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 332 & 353 I.P.C. 2. The necessary facts giving rise to this appeal in short are as follows : That complainant Gauri Shanker made a written report (Ex.P-1) at the Police Station Nawalgarh with the effect that on dated March 01, 1989 at about 10.30 A.M. the teachers were in the school and after taking the attendance of the students started teaching, then all of a sudden at 11.30 A.M. one Shri Salag Ram, Pratap Chandra and Ramswaroop (accused-respondents) came in the school and started beating to them. The teachers were also abused by the accused-respondents. 3. After investigation challan was filed before the Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Class-I, Nawalgarh (Raj.) under Sections 332 and 353 IPC. 4. The charges were read over and explained to the accused-respondents who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. During trial the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 7 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. 6. Thereafter the statements of the accused-respondents under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. 7. After conclusion of the trial the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Class-I, Nawalgarh (Raj.) vide his judgment and order dated March 22, 1990 acquitted the accused-respondents from the charges framed against them holding inter alia that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. 8. Aggrieved against the judgment and order of the Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Class-I, Nawalgarh (Raj.) dated March 22, 1990, the State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal. 9. In this appeal it has been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Class-I, Nawalgarh (Raj.) has not considered the statements of the prosecution witnesses properly and should have been believed by the Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Class-I, Nawalgarh (Raj.) and thus, the impugned judgment and order dated March 22, 1990 is erroneous one and should be set aside. 10. 10. It is also contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that the learned trial court has acquitted the accused respondents on the ground that there is a contradiction among the statements of the witnesses, whereas there is no contradiction among the statements of the witnesses and they are all supporting to the prosecution case, hence the acquittal of the accused-respondents is against the law. 11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused-respondents has submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Class-I, Nawalgarh (Raj.) are based on the correct appreciation of evidence and after giving cogent reasons the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Class-I, Nawalgarh (Raj.) has acquitted the accused respondents from the charges framed against them and thus, no interference is required with the impugned judgment and order of the Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Class-I, Nawalgarh (Raj.). 12. The learned counsel Mr. S.S. Naruka has also drawn the attention of this court on the particular point that the PW-1 Gori Shankar and PW-2 Dayanand were teachers and whose attendance was not found in the attendance register of this school. On that day they were not present in the school and attendance register of the school for teachers was not produced before the court. He has also contended that one of the star witness of the prosecution namely PW-7 Pratap Singh has been declared hostile. Lastly it is submitted by the learned counsel that the prosecution story is concocted. 13. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the respondent and also gone through the record of the case. 14. Having gone through the impugned judgment and order dated March 22, 1990 passed by the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Class-I, Nawalgarh (Raj.), I find that the learned trial court has given cogent reasons for not finding the case of the prosecution proved against accused respondents. 15. 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 have 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." 16. 98 : SCC 2006 Vol.10 page 136 in which the Lordships of the Supreme Court have 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." 16. 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 Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Class-I, Nawalgarh (Raj.) was right in acquitting the accused respondents. I have no reason to dissent from the finding of acquittal recorded by the Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Class-I, Nawalgarh (Raj.), as it appears to be reasonable and plausible in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Class-I, Nawalgarh (Raj.) has given cogent reasons in acquitting the accused respondents. 17. 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 weight 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 and order of acquittal passed by the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Class-I, Nawalgarh (Raj.) and this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 18. Accordingly, this appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan fails and the same is hereby dismissed, after confirming the judgment and order of acquittal dated March 22, 1990 passed by the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Class-I, Nawalgarh (Raj.). The accused-respondents are on bail and they need not to surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged.State Appeal Dismissed. *******