Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 15.9.2009 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Tonk in Sessions Case No.17/2008 whereby the learned trial Court has acquitted the accused respondent No.2. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 29.11.2007, complainant Sukhlal lodged a written report being FIR No.149/2007 under Sec. 3(5) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the respondent No.2. Same was committed for trial to the Court of Special Judge, Tonk. After hearing both the parties, charge under Section 3(1)(5) of the SC/ST Act was framed against the respondent No.2, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The trial Court, after conducting the trial, acquitted the respondent No.2 from the aforesaid offence vide order dated 15.9.2009. Hence, this revision petition has been preferred by he petitioner-complainant against the acquittal of respondent No.2. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in its right perspective, has not properly considered the statements of prosecution witnesses, hence order impugned dated 15.9.209 should be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents as also Public Prosecutor have opposed the same and supported the impugned order passed by trial Court dated 15.9.2009, and contended that the trial Court has passed the order after due appreciation of evidence and material available on record, hence revision petition should be dismissed. 5. The court attention was also drawn on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Umrao vs. State of Haryana & Ors. reported in (2006) 10 SCC page 136, 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. reported in (2006) 10 SCC page 136, 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 re-assess 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 he 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." 6. Having gone through the impugned judgment passed by the court below, I find that the learned court below has given cogent reasons for not finding the case of the prosecution proved against the accused respondent No.2. 7. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it can easily be said that the prosecution has not been able to prove is case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused respondents for the offence for which he had been charged and the learned trial Court was right in acquitting the accused respondent No.2. I have no reason to dissent from the finding of acquittal recorded by the court below, as same appear to be reasonable and plausible in the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision petition filed by the complainant-petitioner fails and the same is hereby dismissed, after confirming the judgment of acquittal passed by the Court below.