JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has preferred instant revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401, Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment of acquittal dated 17.7.2000 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Lakheri, District Bundi, Rajasthan, (for short'the trial Court') passed in regular Criminal Case No. 61/1997 by which he acquitted the accused respondents from the offence under Sections 498A and 406, Indian Penal Code. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant petitioner Smt. Rekha submitted a written report, on the basis of which an FIR No. 174/1996 was registered at Police Station Lakheri under Sections 498A and 406, Indian Penal Code. 3. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet in the Court concerned against the accused respondents for the aforesaid offences. 4. The Trial Court after hearing framed charges against the accused respondents for the aforesaid offences, who denied the charges, did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried in the matter. 5. The prosecution in support of its case produced as many as 8 witnesses and certain documents were got exhibited. 6. Thereafter, the statements of the accused respondents under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code were recorded. In defence the accused respondents produced two witnesses and certain documents were got exhibited. 7. The Trial Court after hearing acquitted the accused respondents from the aforesaid offences vide judgment dated 17.7.2000. Hence, this criminal revision petition. 8. I have heard both the Counsel appearing for the respective parties and carefully gone through the entire material made available to me. 9. Mr. Vikas Kabra, Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Trial Court has committed an illegality and material irregularity in not taking into consideration the statements of the prosecution witnesses as also other material available on record. The charges were framed against the accused respondents beyond doubt which was also proved by medical evidence led by prosecution wherein was proved that the petitioner was beaten by the accused respondents. The Trial Court has failed to consider the fact that before ousting the petitioner from the house, the in-laws have given beating to her mercilessly and even father-in-law had caught hold of her hands and mother-in-law had inducted a cloth to the petitioner's mouth and the husband had beaten the petitioner. Because of continuous and merciless beating the petitioner became permanently ill. Because of continuous and merciless beating the petitioner became permanently ill. In-laws had also taken the ornaments of the petitioner under their custody and a plain stamp paper was also got signed forcefully and under threat from the petitioner by the in-laws. The Trial Court while passing the impugned judgment has considered the statements of PW1 Dhanmal and PW2 Kalu Lal, who are interested witnesses. The Trial Court has failed to consider the statement of the petitioner. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 17.7.2000 passed by the Trial Court be quashed and set aside. 10. On the other hand Mr. Piyush Kumar, P.P. submits that the Trial Court has acquitted the accused respondents after considering the statements of the prosecution witnesses as also all other material available on record. Thus, no interference is required to be made in the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court. 11. The Court attention was drawn on the following judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Umrao v. State of Haryana & Ors., III (2006) CCR 14 (SC)=IV (2006) SLT 498=2006 (2) WLC SC Crl. 98 , 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." 12. 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 acquitted. I have no reason to dissent from the finding of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court as the same appears to be reasonable and plausible in the facts and circumstances of the case. 13. It may be stated that in revision against acquittal though powers of the High Court to reassess the evidence and to reach its own conclusions are as extensive as in revision 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 Court 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 Trial Court and this criminal revision is liable to be dismissed. 14. In the result, this revision petition is devoid of merits and stands rejected.Revision Petition dismissed. *******