JUDGMENT 1. - Criminal Leave to Appeal No. 103/2011 has been filed by the State of Rajasthan and S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 71/2010 has been filed by the complainant against the judgment dated 19.12.2009 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 3, Bharatpur H.Q. Bayana in Sessions Case No. 23/2009, whereby he acquitted the accused-respondent Surgyan from the charge under Sections 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C.Brief facts of the case are as under:- "The complainant Najjo submitted a typed report (Ex.P-11) at Police Station, Bayana, District Bharatpur in which he alleged that on 8.1.2009, at about 8.00 PM, accused persons Devendra S/o Banney Singh, Soni S/o Malke, Bhag Singh S/o Sarupa, Vijjo S/o Heera Lai, Mahendra S/o Pooran, Ashok S/o Lakhpat, Tulsiram S/o Hukam, by caste Gurjar, R/o Adda, Police Station Bayana, Bhero Singh S/o Sahab Singh, Samay Singh S/o Girraj, R/o Gudriya Pura, Majra Nagla Hota, having common intention and object and armed with weapons, entered into the house of the complainant and they put fire in the Chhapar Posh of the complainant and they abducted 13 years old Rama. Upon that, the police registered F.I.R. No. 15/2009 for the offence under Sections 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused-respondent for the aforesaid offences in the Court of Magistrate. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions, who transferred the same to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 3, Bharatpur. The learned Trial Court framed charges against the accused-respondent for the offence under Sections 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C. The accused-respondent denied for the same and claimed for trial. Thereafter the prosecution has examined 20 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter the statement of accused-respondent were recorded under Section 313 I.P.C. After hearing both the sides, the learned Trial Court has passed the judgment dated 19.12.2009 acquitting the accused-respondent No. 2 as indicated here-in-above." 2. Against the said judgment, Cr. Leave to Appeal has been filed by the State Government, while Cr. Revision ,Pt. No. 71/2010 has been filed by the complainant petitioner. 3. Since both the cases have been filed against one judgment passed by the Trial Court, hence the arguments have been heard together and they are being decided by this common order. 4. Leave to Appeal has been filed by the State Government, while Cr. Revision ,Pt. No. 71/2010 has been filed by the complainant petitioner. 3. Since both the cases have been filed against one judgment passed by the Trial Court, hence the arguments have been heard together and they are being decided by this common order. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned PP have contended that the judgment dated 19.12.2009 passed by the Trial Court is contrary to the provisions of law. They have further contended that the Trial Court has committed serious error of law as well as fact in acquitting the accused-respondent No. 2 Surgyan from the charge under Sections 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C. From the evidence adduced by the prosecution during trial as well as from the material/evidence came on record, the offence under Sections 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C. is fully made out and proved against the accused-respondent and he deserves to be convicted and sentenced for the said charges, but the learned Trial Court without properly appreciating the evidence available on record, has wrongly and illegally acquitted the accused-respondent from all the charges framed against him. In such circumstances, the impugned judgment of acquittal is liable to be quashed and set-aside and the accused-respondent deserves to be convicted and sentenced for the offence under Sections 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C. They have further contended that from the evidence came on record are produced by the prosecution, it is proved that the accused-respondent hat kidnapped the minor daughter of the complainant namely Rama against her will with intent to commit criminal offence and to commit illicit intercourse. Thus, the offence under Section 366 I.P.C. is fully proved against the accused-respondent, but the learned Trial Court without properly appreciating the evidence came on record, has illegally acquitted the accused-respondent form the said charge. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel Mr. Manoj Chaudhary has contender that the Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence of the prosecution. Thus, the offence under Section 366 I.P.C. is fully proved against the accused-respondent, but the learned Trial Court without properly appreciating the evidence came on record, has illegally acquitted the accused-respondent form the said charge. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel Mr. Manoj Chaudhary has contender that the Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence of the prosecution. He has drawn the attention of this Court on para No. 44 of the judgment of the Trial Court, which is reproduced as under: " i=koyh ij ;g rF; Hkh vk;k gS fd dqN xokgku us jkek dk mn;iqj ls vkuk dgk gSa rFkk dqN xokgku us ukFk }kjk ls vkuk dgk gS ;g fojks/khHkk"kh rF; Hkh U;k;ky; ds le{k vk;k gSA mDr fojks/kkHkk"kksa ds gksrs gq, Hkh vfHk;ksD=h jkek ds lkFk gq, cykRdkj ds lEcU/k esa fopkj djsa rks U;k;ky; dks fpfdRld ih0MCY;q0 17 Mk0 ekuosUnz 'kqDyk ds dFkuksa ij fopkj djuk gksxk ftlus fnukad 15-1-2009 dks jkek dk cykRdkj lEcU/kh ijh{k.k fd;k gS ftlus vfHk;ksD=h dk gkbZeu VwVk gqvk o ykfyek fy;s gq, gksuk crk;k gS rFkk ;g Hkh crk;k gS fd gkbZeu ds VwVs gq, dady ekStwn FksA mDr rF; ij ftjg fd;s tkus ij fpfdRld us crk;k fd jkek lsDl dh vkuh ugh FkhA izn'kZ ih0 5 esa tks ykfyek crk;h x;h gS og vf/kdre 24 ?kaVs rd jg ldrh gSA fpfdRld us Lohdkj fd;k fd ;g fnukad 14 rkjh[k ds ckn dk gSA ykfyek fnukad 14-1-2009 fnu ds 12 cts ls 15-1-2009 ds nksigj ds 12 cts chp gks ldrh gSA blls Li"V gS fd vfHk;ksD=h dk gkbZeu VwVk gksuk crk;k gS og fnukad 14-1-2009 ls iwoZ dk ugha FkkA i=koyh ij tks rF; vk;k gS mlls ;g Hkh Li"V gksrk gS fd vfHk;ksD=h dks tfj;s QnZ izn'kZ ih0 2 ds fnukad 14-1-2009 dks Qfj;knh uTtks dks lqiqnZxh ij ns fn;k x;k rFkk vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh us Hkh ftjg esa jkek dk lqiqnZ djus dk le; izkr% 9 cts dk crk;k gSA bl izdkj mijksDr lEiw.kZ foospu ls vfHk;ksD=h jkek ds lkFk vfHk;qDr lqjKku }kjk cykRdkj fd;s tkus dh iqf"V fpfdRldh; lk{; ls Hkh ugha gksrh gSA " 6. He has defended the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court and stated the same to be just and proper. 7. The Court attention was also drawn on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Umrao v. State of Haryana & Ors. He has defended the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court and stated the same to be just and proper. 7. The Court attention was also drawn on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Umrao v. State of Haryana & Ors. reported in (2006) 10 SCC page 136 : 2006 Cr. L.R. 519 (SC), in which their Lordships of Supreme Court observed in para No. 26 that: "It is not well settled that if two views are possible, the appellate Court should not interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the Court below. 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 Trial Court and the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan is liable to be dismissed." 8. Having gone through the impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court, find that the learned Trial Court has given cogent reasons for not finding the case of the prosecution proved against the accused-respondent. 9. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it can easily be said that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused-respondent for the offence for which he had been charged and the learned Trial Court was right in acquitting the accused-respondent. have no reason to dissent from the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Court, as they appear to be reasonable and plausible in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan as also the criminal revision filed by the complainant fail and the same are hereby dismissed, after confirming the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court.Leave to Appeal dismissed. *******