JUDGMENT 1. - The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal under Section 378(i) & (iii) Cr.PC. against the judgment of acquittal dated 3.5.2000 passed by the Special Judge (Women Atrocities & Dowry Cases) Jaipur (for short 'the trial Court') passed in sessions case No. 100/98 whereby he acquitted the accused respondents from all the offences by giving them the benefit of doubt. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the daughter of the complainant who is prosecutrix in the case went to give half yearly examination of Xth class on 23.12.1995 at 7:00 AM. Her paper was at 11:00 AM but up-to 9:00 PM in the evening she did not reach at her home. Upon this complainant Leeladhar submitted a report Ex.P6 at P.S. Narmada on 23.12.1995 at about 9:30 PM and prayed for recovery of his daughter. 3. On 24.1.1995 at about 8:00 PM in the night prosecutorix reached at her home with Beerbal. Thereafter, the complainant (sic) Beerbal submitted a written report Ex.P4 at P.S. Jhotwara at 4:00 PM (sic) in which entire story was narrated. 4. On the basis of this written report, the police registered an FIR No. 573/1995 for the offence under Sections 365, 376, 342 IPC. 5. After investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the accused respondents for the offence under Sections 365, 376 and 342 IPC. 6. The trial Court after hearing framed the charges against the accused respondents for the aforesaid offences, who denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried in the matter. 7. The prosecution in support of its case produced as many as 14 witnesses and certain documents were got exhibited. 8. Thereafter the statement of the accused-respondents under Section 313 Cr.PC. were recorded. In defence the accused respondents did not produce any evidence. 9. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court vide its judgment dated 3.5.2000 acquitted the accused-respondents from the aforesaid offences. 10. Aggrieved with the Impugned judgment of acquittal dated 3.5.2000 passed by trial Court, the State of Rajasthan has preferred the instant appeal. 11. I have heard both the counsel appearing for the respective parties and carefully scanned the entire material made available to me. 12. In this appeal it has been submitted by the counsel for the accused respondents that the accused respondent No. 3 Kishore Singh has died, therefore, the criminal appeal filed against him has abated. 11. I have heard both the counsel appearing for the respective parties and carefully scanned the entire material made available to me. 12. In this appeal it has been submitted by the counsel for the accused respondents that the accused respondent No. 3 Kishore Singh has died, therefore, the criminal appeal filed against him has abated. This submission could not be controverted by the learned Public Prosecutor. 13. Accordingly, the criminal appeal filed against accused respondent No. 3 Kishore Singh is abated. 14. So far as other accused respondents are concerned, learned Public Prosecutor for the State submits that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the statements of the prosecution witnesses and erred in acquitting the accused respondents for the afore-mentioned offences. The trial Court has failed to consider the statement of prosecutrix in right perspective. The trial court has failed to consider that at the time of alleged incident the prosecutrix was 14 to 16 years, despite that the trial Court acquitted the accused respondents. The trial Court has also ignored this fact that the offence committed by the accused persons is not only against the prosecutrix but against the society as well. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 3.5.2000 passed by the trial Court is erroneous one and be quashed and set aside and the accused respondents be convicted and sentenced for the aforesaid offences. 15. On the other hand, the counsel for the accused-respondents 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 respondents from the aforesaid offences. No interference is required to be made in the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court. The accused respondents are facing trial since 24.12.1995 i.e. more than 13 years which tantamounts to a mental agony. The marriage of the prosecutrix has been solemnized years back. In the instant case two reports have been submitted; first on 23.12.1995 and second on 24.12.1995 and there are great contradictions in both the reports. The statement given by the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is much contradictory to the statements recorded by the police. 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 at page Nos. The statement given by the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is much contradictory to the statements recorded by the police. 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 at page Nos. 24, 25 and 26 of the Judgment itself. Thus, the impugned Judgment of acquittal dated 3.5.2000 passed by the trial Court needs no interference of this Court. 16. Having gone through the impugned judgment 3.5.2000 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 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. 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." 17. 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 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 circumstances of the case. 18. 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. 19. 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. 19. Accordingly, this appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan fails and the same is hereby dismissed, after confirming the judgment of acquittal dated 3.5.2000 passed by the Special Judge (Women Atrocities & Dowry Cases) Jaipur passed in Sessions Case No. 100/98.Appeal Dismissed. *******