JUDGMENT 1. - The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated June 13, 1988 passed by Sessions Judge Bharatpur (Raj.) in Sessions Case No. 86/85 by which he acquitted the accused-respondents Badan Singh & Ors. for the offence under Sections 307, 307/34 IPC. 2. The necessary facts giving rise to this appeal in short are as follows: 3. That on May 17, 1985 Chitar Singh (PW-1) has lodged a Parcha Bayan in Police Station Sevar on May 17, 1985 at about 5.45 A.M. he went to his village Mahuwa by scooter at the residents of Dharm Singh Jatav. At about 6.30 PM. when he return back to his village alongwith Dharam Singh Jatav then accused-respondents and one Nawab Singh armed with Deshi Katta and lathi came behind the trees and Puran Singh (accused-respondent No.3) had fired towards him and rest of the other co-accused respondents and Nawab Singh had also given lathi blow with an intention to kill him. He has also stated in his Parcha Bayan that Brijendra (accused-respondent No.2) had 5 snatched his wrist-alarm and Rs. 1921/- had been snatched by Nawab Singh. 4. Upon the aforesaid information the police registered a case under Section 307/34 and 394 IPC and started investigation. 5. After usual investigation the police submitted a challan against the accused-respondents before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharatpur where the case has been committed to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharatpur. 6. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharatpur (Raj.) has framed the charges against the accused-respondents under Section 307, 307/34 IPC. 7. The charges were read over and explained to the accused-respondents who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 8. During trial the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 9 witnesses and also submitted two court witnesses namely CW-1 Chetandas Ravtali and CW-2 Premsagar Manocha and got exhibited some documents. 9. Thereafter the statements of the accused-respondents under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. 10. After conclusion of the trial the learned Sessions Judge, Bharatpur vide his judgment and order dated June 13, 1988 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 doubts. 11. Aggrieved against the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge, Bharatpur dated June 13, 1988 the State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal. 12. 11. Aggrieved against the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge, Bharatpur dated June 13, 1988 the State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal. 12. In this appeal it has been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the Sessions Judge, Bharatpur has not considered the statements of the prosecution witnesses properly and should have been believed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bharatpur and thus the impugned judgment and order dated June 13, 1988 is erroneous one and should be set aside. 13. He has further contended that the learned trial court has not considered the statements of PW-9 Uday Singh and other witnesses of the prosecution properly and acquitted the accused-respondents. 14. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused-respondents has submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the Sessions Judge, Bharatpur (Raj.) are based on the correct appreciation of evidence and after giving cogent reasons the learned Sessions Judge, Bharatpur 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 Sessions Judge, Bharatpur in this appeal. 15. 15. The learned counsel for the respondents has drawn the statements of the following witnesses of the prosecution : ih0MCY;q01 Nhrjflag dk c;ku gS fd fnukad 17-5-1985 dks lqcg vius xkao egqvk ls LdwVj ij xzke ?kksj x;k FkkA ogkWa ls lk<+s N% cts izkr% vius xkao ds fy, jokuk gqvkA mlds ihNs /keZflag cSBk FkkA tSls gh og egqvk xkao dh lhek esa izos'k gq, iVjh dh ck;ha rjQ vkd ds isM+ksa esa ls eqfYteku cnu] c`tsUnz] iwj.k ekStwnk vnkyr u uokc e`rd ,dne ls fudysA iwj.k us ,dne Qk;j fd;k tks muds LdwVj ds eMxkM] vxys ifg;s o lkeus ds doj esa yxs ftlls csysUl fcxM+ x;kA c`tsUnz] cnu o uokc mls ykfB;ksa ls cqjh rjg ekjus yxsA mlus vius gkFkksa ls flj dk cpko fd;k ftlls 'kjhj ij chlksa pksVsa vkbZA mldk gkB o iSj VwV x;kA /keZflag eqyfteku dks ns[kdj iu xkao dh rjQ pyk x;kA mlus nqgkbZ nh ftl ij jruflag jkepj.k ikl ds [ksrksa ls vk x;sA c`tsUnz us mlds gkFk dh VkbeLVkj ?kM+h ftl ij ?kkyk iV~Vk yxk Fkk [kksy yh vkSj uokc us mlds ilZ ls 2100 :i;s fudky fy;sA cnu us mldh pkfc;ksa dk xqPNk o tsc esa ls :eky vkfn fudky fy;sA cnu us dgk fd ;s ftUnk u jg tk;s bls tku ls [kre dj nks ojuk vkbZUnk ;g rax djsxkA og iVjh ij iM+k jgkA ckn esa 'ksjflag uked yM+dk Fkkus ij x;kA iqfyl us mlls iwNrkN dh o c;ku fy;kA " ih0MCY;q jkelju dk c;ku gS fd og Nhrjflag ljiap dks tkurk gSA nks lky igys ikSus N% cts ds djhc jruflag us dgk fd [ksr ij ikyk dkVus pysA os nksuksa [ksr dh vksj py fn;sA vkxs FkksM+h nwj jkethyky ds edku ij jkeflag] cnu] iwj.k] uokc vkSj c`tsUnz pqipki ckrsa dj jgs FksA bu ij ykfB;kWa FkhaA os vius [ksr dh vksj pys x;sA bruh nsj esa Nhrjflag vius LdwVj ls ?kksj xkao dh vksj tk jgk FkkA mlds ihNs eqyfteku py fn;sA lqcg djhc lk<+s N% cts Nhrjflag ?kksj xkao dh vksj ls ykSVdj vk;k og egqvk dh rjQ tk jgk FkkA os cUnwd dh vkokt lqudj ml rjQ x;s rks Nhrj esa eqfYteku cnuflag] c`tsUnz o uokc ykfB;kWa ns jgs FksA iwj.kflag ds gkFk esa dV~Vk FkkA geus cpkus dh dksf'k'k dh ysfdu os ugha ekusA Nhrj ds LdwVj ds ihNs dh lhV ij ,d tkVo cSBk Fkk ftls mlus ?kksj dh rjQ Hkkxrs gq, ns[kk FkkA og nqgkbZ ns jgk FkkA LdwVj ,d lkbZM esa fxjk iM+k Fkk nwljh lkbZM esa Nhrj iM+k FkkA " ih0MCY;q05 jruflag dk c;ku gS fd djhc <+kbZ lky igys og o jkelj.k vius [ksrksa ij ikyk dkVus x;s FksA jkLrs esa FkksM+h nwj pydj jkethyky ds edku ds ikl c`tsUnz] iwj.k] cnuflag vkSj uokc feysA uokcflag ds vykok lHkh rhuksa eqyfteku gkftj vnkyr gSA uokcflag dh e`R;q gks x;hA os ikyk dkVus gsrq ?kksj dh rjQ c<+s rks Nhrjflag LdwVj ij ?kksj dh vksj tkrk feykA eqyfteku Hkh ?kksj dh rjQ pys x;s FkksM+h nsj ckn dV~Vk pyus dh vkokt vkbZA jkelju us dgk fd dksbZ vkneh lM+d ij fpYyk jgk gSA os nksuksa m/kj Hkkxs vkSj ns[kk fd Nhrjflag lM+d ij fpYyk jgk FkkA eqyfteku Nhrjflag ds lkFk ekjihV dj jgs FksA " ih0MCY;q06 gjhflag dk c;ku gS fd djhc <+kbZ iksus rhu lky igys og rFkk mldk Hkrhtk lkbZfdy ij lSuh xkao ls lqcg 6&7 cts viuh yM+dh ds lEcU/k esa ckrsa djus ds ckn ?kksj xkao gksdj vk jgs FksA ?kksj dh rjQ ls Nhrjflag ljiap LdwVj ls vk jgk FkkA dqN nsj ckn cUnwdsa pyus dh vkokt vkbZA os rsth ls lkbZfdy pykdj vk;s rks ns[kk fd egqvk vkSj ?kksj ds chp esa lM+d ij cnuflag] iwj.k] c`tsUnz o uokc Nhrjflag dks ekj jgs FksA uokc ds vykok lHkh eqyfteku gkftj vnkyr gSA " ih0MCY;q03 gjneflag dk c;ku gS fd Nhrjflag ljiap mldk lkyk gSA og [kqn dk edku cukus ds fy, NqV~Vh ysdj vk;k gqvk FkkA mlus Nhrjflag dks Hkjriqj vLirky esa iqfyl dh xkM+h ls mrjrs ns[kk FkkA os ?kk;y FksA Nhrjflag us mls crk;k fd :i;k o ?kM+h ?kVuk ds le; mlls Nhu yh FkhA " ih0MCY;q07 MkW0 Hkksikyflag pkS/kjh dk c;ku gS fd fnukad 17-5-1985 dks og lkekU; fpfdRlky; Hkkjr esa esfMdy T;qfj"V ds in ij dk;Zjr FkkA ml jkst lqcg 10 cts mlus Nhrjflag iq= dY;k.kflag tkV fuoklh egqvk dh pksVksa dh ijh{k.k fd;k Fkk ftlds cnu ij 20 pksVsa ikbZ FkhA pksV izfrosnu izn'kZ ih06 mldh Lofyf[kr o gLrk{kfjr gSA et:c ds lHkh pksVsa HkkSaVs gfFk;kj dh 12 ?k.Vs ds vUnj dh FkhA mlus pksVksa dk ijh{k.k djk;s tkus dh jk; nh FkhA {k&fdj.k ijh{k.k izfrosnu izn'kZ ih07 mls feyk FkkA ftlds vuqlkj Nhrjflag dh nk;ha rtZuh vaxqyh ij rFkk nk;sa ?kqVus ij xaHkhj pksV FkhA et:c gks'k esa FkkA Nhrjflag dh pksVksa dks ns[krs gq, mldh mez dks ns[krs gq, pksV izfrosnu esa ntZ pksVksa ls mldh e`R;q gks ldrh FkhA "" ih0MCY;q08 ukjk;.klgk; dk c;ku gS fd fnukad 17-5-1985 dks og ,l0,p0vks0 lsoj FkkA 'ksjflag us tckuh bryk nh Fkh fd ?kksj ds taxy esa >xM+k gks x;k gSA ogkWa Nhrjflag ljiap ds lkFk ekjihV dh tk jgh gSA og ekSds ij igqpkA ogkWa Nhrjflag ljiap [kkV ij ysVk gqvk FkkA mlus mldk ipkZc;ku izn'kZ ih01 ys[kc) fd;k FkkA ipkZ c;ku dks chjcyflag ,y0lh0 ds }kjk dk;eh eqdnek ds fy;s Fkkuk lsoj Hkstk ftl ij eqdnek la[;k 110@85 ntZ fd;k x;kA "" ih0MCY;q04 ckcwflag dk c;ku gS fd Nhrjflag ds djhc <+kbZ lky igys pksVsa yxh FkhA iqfyl us mlds lkeus Nhrjflag dh /kksrh [kwu vkywnk mlds lkeus dCts esa yh Fkh ftldks tfj;s QnZ izn'kZ ih03 dCts esa ysdj lhy fd;k FkkA ih0MCY;q06 mn;ikyflag esdsfudy bUlisDVj VzkaliksVZ dk c;ku bl vk'k; dk gS fd fnukad 22-5-85 dks og iqfyl ykbZu Hkjriqj esa ,e0Vh0vks0 fu;qDr FkkA mldk dk;Z okguksa dk esdsfudy eqvk;uk djuk gSA ,l0,p0vks0 Fkkuk lsoj dh izkFkZuk ij mlus fiz;k LdwVj vkjlhMh 4657 dk eqvk;uk dj fjiksVZ izn'kZ ih010 rS;kj dh FkhA LdwVj ds gsafMy esa ck;ha vksj dk yhoj VwVk gqvk FkkA vxys ifg;s dh fje ij Bksl inkFkZ ds djhcu 32 txg&txg fu'kku yxs FksA "" lh0MCY;q02 MkW0 izselkxj eukspk dk c;ku bl vk'k; dk gS fd og ,e0,l0ih0 o ih0,p0Mh0 xf.kr esa gSA blds i'pkr~ mlus N% eghus dk Qksjsaflx csykfLVd esa fMIyksek fd;kA mlus lSadM+ksa dslst dk ijh{k.k fd;k ,oa U;k;ky; esa lk{; ds :i esa mifLFkr gqvk gSA eqdnek la[;k 110@85 iqfyl Fkkuk lsoj ds ekeys esa izkIr eky dks fujh{k.k ds fy, csykfLVd foHkkx esa fHktok fn;k x;kA eky ,l0ih0 Hkjriqj ds ;gkWa ls lhYM gkyr esa izkIr gqvk FkkA bl iSfdV dks [kksyus ds mijkUr ,l0ih0 }kjk pkgh xbZ jk; ds vuqlkj ijh{k.k fd;k x;k rFkk bldh fjiksVZ izn'kZ ih011 rS;kj dj vius gLrk{kj , ls ch fd;sA " 16. 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. 17. Having gone through the impugned judgment and order dated June 13, 1988 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bharatpur (Raj.), I find that the learned trial court has given cogent reasons for not finding the case of the prosecution proved against accused respondents. 18. 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 : SC 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." 19. 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 he has been charged and the learned Sessions Judge, Bharatpur (Raj.) was right in acquitting the accused respondents. I have no reason to dissent from the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge Bharatpur (Raj.), as they appear to be reasonable and plausible in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Sessions Judge, Bharatpur (Raj.) has given cogent reason in acquitting the accused respondents. 20. 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, Bharatpur (Raj.) and this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 21. Therefore, this court does not want to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bharatpur (Raj.) and this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 21. Accordingly, this appeal filed by the State of Rajastshan fails and the same is hereby dismissed, after confirming the judgment and order of acquittal dated June 13, 1988 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Bharatpur (Raj.). The accused-respondents are on bail and they need not to surrender. Their bail bond stand discharged.State Appeal Dismissed. *******