JUDGMENT 1. - The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated October 08, 1985 passed by Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur (Raj.) in Case No. 117/83 by which he acquitted the accused-respondent Radhey Shyam for the offence under Section 376 IPC. 2. The necessary facts giving rise to this appeal in short are as follows : That on March 09, 1983 one Radhey Shyam (PW-6) has submitted a written report (Ex.P-5) in Police Station, Sawai Madhopur in which it has been stated that on March 8, 1983 at evening when his 14 years old sister Gyarsi (PW-2) going for latrine then suddenly on the way the accused-respondent Radhey Shyam S/o Laddu (Viru) forcefully committed sexual intercourse with her. It was also stated in this report that Mangya (PW-4) and Rampool (PW-5) had escaped (sic) the prosecutrix Gyarsi. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Sawai Madhopur sent this report to the SHO Kandar Upon which on March 10, 1983 the police registered the FIR No. 23/1983. The police has investigated the matter. The prosecutrix Gyarsi has also medically examined. The police filed a challan against the accused-respondent before the Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur under Section 376 IPC who committed the case to the Sessions Court. 4. The learned Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur has framed the charges against the accused-respondent under Sections 376 IPC. 5. The charges were read over and explained to the accused-respondent who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. During trial the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 11 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. 7. Thereafter the statements of the accused-respondent under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. 8. After conclusion of the trial the learned Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur (Raj.) vide his judgment and order dated October 8, 1985 acquitted the accused-respondent from the charges framed against him holding inter alia that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. 9. Aggrieved against the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur (Raj.) dated October 8, 1985 the State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal. 10. 9. Aggrieved against the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur (Raj.) dated October 8, 1985 the State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal. 10. In this appeal it has been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the learned Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur (Raj.) has not considered the statements of the prosecution witnesses properly and should have been believed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur (Raj.) and thus, the impugned judgment and order dated October 8, 1985 is erroneous one and should be set aside. 11. He has also contended that learned trial judge has not considered the age of prosecutrix below 16 years at the time of occurrence. He has also contended that learned trial judge has also not considered the statements of Rampool (PW-5). 12. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused-respondent has submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur (Raj.) are based on the correct appreciation of evidence and after giving cogent reasons the learned Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur (Raj.) has acquitted the accused respondent from the charges framed against him and thus, no interference is required with the impugned judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur (Raj.). 13. 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. 14. This Court has to assess the evidence which has been recorded by the trial judge. Accordingly PW-1 Dr. 13. 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. 14. This Court has to assess the evidence which has been recorded by the trial judge. Accordingly PW-1 Dr. Gajanand Parashar who was the Deputy C.M.H.O. and examined the prosecutrix Gyarsi has stated in his statements as under : " xqIrkax iq.kZ fodflr FksA fdlh rjg ds pksV ds fu'kku u rks xqIrkax ds mij Fks] o vUnj Fks vkSj ;ksuh ds vkl&ikl ds fdlh {ks= esa pksV FkhA cky fodflr Fks] ftudks dkV dj ijh{k.k ds fy, Hkstk x;kA ;ksfu ds ckgjh o Hkhrjh fgLls ls nks LykbZM~l cukdj ( rjy inkFkZ ) ysdj ijh{k.k ds fy, Hksth] ;ksfu esa nks maxfy;ka vklkuh ls izos'k dh rks fdlh izdkj ls d"V vkSj nnZ gksuk izdV ugha fd;kA isVhdksV tks ysdj jklk;fud ijh{k.k ds fy, HkstkA esjs erkuqlkj dq0 X;kjlh lEHkksx djus dh vH;LFkk FkhA " lk{kh us izfrosnu izn'kZ ih 2 ns[k dj dgk esjs }kjk tks jklk;fud ds fy;s cky] LykbM~l vkSj ?kk?kjk Hkstk x;k ;k ml lEcU/k esa ;g izfrosnu gS ftlds vuqlkj LykbM~l cky vkSj ?kk?kjs ij thu oh;Z ,oa 'kqdzk.kq lheu ,.M LijesVksTok gksuk ik;k x;kA " eSaus vk;q ds lEcU/k esa jsfM;ksyksftLV ls dq0 X;kjlh dks ijh{k.k ds fy, Hkstk ftldk izfrosnu izn'kZ ih 3 izkIr gqvk ftlds vk/kkj ij eSaus ;g er izdV fd;k fd dq0 X;kjlh dh vk;q 14 ls mij vkSj 17 ls de gSA izn'kZ ih 3 esa ,0 ch0 esjs Lo;a ds }kjk vaxzsth fy[kk gqvk gS rFkk lh ls Mh esjs gLrk{kj gSaA " 15. According to the statements of Gyarsi (PW-2) who has stated as under : vkt ls yxHkx 8 efgus ifgys dh ckr gSA 'kke ds 8&9 cts dh ckr gSA eSa vius /kj ls 'khryk ekrk ds efUnj ij xbZ FkhA eSa m/kj 'kkSp ( fucVus ) ds fy, xbZ FkhA eSa tc fucV dj [kkyh yksVk ysdj j[kk gh Fkk fd brus esa jk/ks';ke iq= yM~Mw tks U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr gSA vk;kA mlus vkrs gh esjs eqag es Vkoy Hkj fn;kA vkSj tcjnLrh djds eq>s vius XokMk ( ckM+k ) esa ys x;kA mlus eq>s fxjk fn;k ( iVd fn;k ) A mlus esjs lkFk cqjk dke fd;kA mlus esjs lkFk ogh dke fd;k tks ,d vkneh vkSjr ds lkFk esa djrk gS ( lEHkksx fd;k ) A eSaus vius vki dks NqM+kus dh dksf'k'k dh ijUrq esjk cl ugha pykA fQj eSa fpYykbZA blh XokMh ds ikl okyk jkeQwy vk;kA vkSj ,d ekaX;k dkdk Hkh vk;kA jkeQwy us ysVk nh VkspZ dh ykbZV Mkyh jkeQwy ds vkus ds ckn vfHk;qDr taxy dh vksj Hkkx x;kA vfHk;qDr ds }kjk esjs lkFk cqjk dke cykrlax djus ls esjs [kwu vk;k tks esjs ?kk?kjs ij yxkA vfHk;qDr jk/ks';ke us esjs lkFk Nhuk&>iVh dh mlls esjs xys xkyksa ij ycwjk [kjksasp&,czstu vkbZA ?kVuk ds fnu ij esjs dks ekgokjh vkbZ gh ugha FkhA " 16. According to the statements of PW-1 Dr. Gajanand Parashar who has stated that it is not the case of the rape and the age of the prosecutrix is above 16 years. PW-6 Radhey Shyam who lodged the first information report has admitted that a dispute is going on between the accused respondent and Radhey Shyam. It was also observed by this court from the judgment of the court below that this first information report was lodged against the accused-respondent after consultation with some legal experts. 17. Having gone through the impugned judgment and order dated October 8, 1985 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur (Raj.), I find that the learned trial court has given cogent reasons for not finding the case of the prosecution proved against, accused respondent.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. 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." 18. 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 (sic) have been charged and the learned Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur (Raj.) was right in acquitting the accused respondent. I have no reason to dissent from the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur (Raj.), as they appear to be reasonable and plausible in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur (Raj.) has given cogent reason in acquitting the accused respondents. 19. 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 Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur (Raj.) and this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 20. 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 October 8, 1985 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur (Raj.). The accused-respondent is on bail and he need not to surrender. His bail bonds stands discharged.State Appeal Dismissed.. *******