JUDGMENT 1. - The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal under Section 378(i) & (iii) Cr.P.C. against the judgment of acquittal dated 25.9.1987 passed by Adal. District & Sessions Judge, Baran, District Kota (for short 'the trial Court') passed in sessions case No. 115/85 whereby he acquitted the accused respondent for the offence under Sections 376 and 457 IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 11.811985 prosecutrix lodged an FIR No. 89/85 at police station Chhabara for the offence under Section 376 IPC alleging therein that on 10.8.85 at about 10:00 P.M. she was sleeping on her cot with her child in her house. The door of the house was closed and chimini was burning. Suddenly, accused Madan Lal came inside her house. He sat near her feet and put-off the chimini and tried to raise petticoat of the prosecutorix. She cried but Madan closed her mouth and committed rape upon her. Where there was discharge he left. As soon as he left, she cried and Shri Phool Chand (younger brother of her husband) and Ram Prasad came there. The accused Madan Lal ran away and he left his Dhoti and shoes there. Due to resistance she received injuries on her nose and on her hand finger and there was semen on her petticoat. 3. After investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the accused respondent for the offence under Sections 376, 457 IPC. 4. The trial Court after hearing framed the charges against the accused respondent for the aforesaid offences, who denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried in the matter. 5. The prosecution in support of its case produced as many as 10 witnesses and certain documents were got exhibited. 6. Thereafter the statement of the accused respondent under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. In defence the accused respondent produced one witness and two documents were got exhibited. 7. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court vide its judgment dated 25.9.1987 acquitted the accused-respondent from the aforesaid offence. 8. Aggrieved with the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 25.9.1987 passed by trial Court, the State of Rajasthan has preferred the instant appeal. 9. I have heard both the counsel appearing for the respective parties and carefully scanned the entire material made available to me. 10. 8. Aggrieved with the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 25.9.1987 passed by trial Court, the State of Rajasthan has preferred the instant appeal. 9. I have heard both the counsel appearing for the respective parties and carefully scanned the entire material made available to me. 10. In this appeal it has been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the statements of the prosecution witnesses and erred in acquitting the accused respondent for the afore-mentioned offences. The trial Court has erred in not placing reliance on the testimony of PW 7 Dr. Mahendra Srivastava. This witness has proved the medical reports Ex.P 7 and Ex.P 7, which corroborate that the rape was committed upon the prosecutorix. The medical reports were proved, which itself were sufficient evidence of its contents and the signature of Dr. T.R. Sikhdh was also proved. Dr. Srivastava was able to read the same, as such he was competent to give secondary evidence. The trial Court has committed an error of law in not placing reliance on FSL report and on the Petticoat of the prosecutorix and the under-wear of accused Madan Lal, semen was detected. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 25.9.1987 is erroneous one and be quashed and set aside and the accused respondent be convicted and sentenced for the aforesaid offences. 11. On the other hand, the counsel for the accused-respondent has submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court is based on the correct appreciation of evidence and after giving cogent reasons, the trial Court has acquitted the accused respondent. No interference is required to be made in the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court. The accused respondent is facing trial since 11.8.1985 i.e. more than 23 years which tantamounts to a mental agony. Lastly, he submits that the trial Court while passing the impugned judgment of acquittal has elaborately dealt with on each and every aspect of the case in the last para of page Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 25.9.1987 passed by the trial Court needs no interference of this Court. 12. Lastly, he submits that the trial Court while passing the impugned judgment of acquittal has elaborately dealt with on each and every aspect of the case in the last para of page Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 25.9.1987 passed by the trial Court needs no interference of this Court. 12. Having gone through the impugned judgment 25.9.1987 passed by the trial Court, I find that the 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. 98 : 2006(10) SCC 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." 13. 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 respondent for the offence for which he has been convicted and the learned trial Court was right in acquitting the accused respondent. 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 i circumstances of the case. 14. 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. 15. Accordingly, this appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan fails and the same is hereby dismissed, after confirming the judgment of acquittal dated 25.9.1987 passed by Addl. 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. 15. Accordingly, this appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan fails and the same is hereby dismissed, after confirming the judgment of acquittal dated 25.9.1987 passed by Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Baran, District Kota passed in sessions case No. 115/85.Appeal dismissed. *******