Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—This appeal has been filed against the order dated 28.9.2012 passed by learned Special Court, Women Atrocities and Dowry Cases, Kota in sessions case No. 29/2011 whereby accused respondent No. 2 has been acquitted of the offence under Sections 376/511 IPC. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 16.11.2010, complainant submitted a written report to PS-Sultanpur in which it has been averred that before 5-6 days there was a fast of `Chauth' and she was alone at her home, and her uncle-in-law (Kaki Sasur) Ram Kalyan was also at home. One Badrilal, neighbour of complainant made a call to her husband. She heard the call and opened the door and replied that her husband is not at home. On opening the door, Badrilal caught her hagnd, carried her to `Baadi' of her house where he started teaqsing and indecent act. She raised alarm on which Ramkalyan came there and caught Badrilal to run. On the aforesaid report, police registered the FIR No. 229/2010 for the offence under Sec. 354 IPC and after investigation filed charge-sheet against the accused for the offence under Sec. 376/511 IPC. The accused respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses and got exhibited certain documents. Statement of accused respondent under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. The trial court after hearing both the parties, acquitted the accused respondent No. 2 for offence under Sec. 376/511 IPC vide impugned order dated 28.9.2012. Against the said order, this appeal has been preferred. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in its right perspective, and has also not properly considered the statements of prosecution witnesses. It is further contended that from the oral as well as documentary evidence, it is proved that the deceased tried to commit rape with her. The prosecutrix herself has stated against the accused that he tried to commit rape with her. She has specificalloy stated in her court statements that the accused came to her house and made all call to her husband, on which she opened the door and replied that her husband is not at home. At the same time, Badrilal closed her mouth and carried her to Baadi where he tried to commit rape with her. She has specificalloy stated in her court statements that the accused came to her house and made all call to her husband, on which she opened the door and replied that her husband is not at home. At the same time, Badrilal closed her mouth and carried her to Baadi where he tried to commit rape with her. It is also contended that the evidence of the prosecutrix has been corroborated and supported by other prosecution witnesses. Hence the order impugned dated 28.9.2012 should be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent as also Public Prosecutor have opposed the same and supported the impugned order passed by trial court dated 28.9.2012, and contended that the trial Court has passed the order after due appreciation of evidence and material available on record, hence appeal should be dismissed. Relevant portion of the impugned order reads as under: bl izdj.k esa izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ izn'kZ ih-1 ntZ djokus esa 5-6 fnu dk tks foyac gqvk gS mldk dksbZ larks"kizn Li"Vhdj.k vfHk;kstu i{k dh vksj ls ugha fn;k x;k gSA izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ izn'kZ ih-1 ntZ gksus ds i'pkr~ vfHk;ksD=h ds vUrxZr /kkjk 161 na-iz-la- esa dFku izn'kZ Mh-1 ys[kc) fd;s x;s gSA vfHk;ksD=h dk ifr ;g Lohdkj djrk gS fd vfHk;qDr ,oa mldh iRuh ds e/; ?kVuk ds 6 ekg iwoZ ls izse izlax py jgk Fkk vkSj vfHk;ksD=h ds dkdh llqj ih-MCY;w- 3 jkedY;k.k us ;g dgk gS fd ?kVuk ds fnu vfHk;ksD=h us ml ij ;g vkjksi yxk;k Fkk fd og mls >waBk cnuke djus dh dksf'k'k dj jgk gS vkSj blls ukjkt gksdj vfHk;ksD=h ihgj pyh xbZ FkhA izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa cykRdkj fd;s tkus dk iz;kl djus ckcr dksbZ rF; vafdr ugha gSA fjiksVZ izn'kZ ih-1 ntZ djokus ds i'pkr~ ,d VkbZi'kqnk i= izn'kZ Mh-2 is'k fd;k x;k gS vkSj mlesa cykRdkj djus dk iz;kl djus laca/kh vkjksi vafdr fd;k x;k gSA bl izdj.k esa tks rF; ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ka izdV gqbZ gS vkSj og fo'oluh; lk{kh dh Js.kh esa ugha vkrh gSA 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 and Ors. The court attention was also drawn on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Umrao vs. State of Haryana and 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. 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 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." 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 respondents. 7. Looking to the facts & 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 respondents for the offence for which he had been charged and the learned trial Court was right in acquitting the accused respondents. 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 & circumstances of the case. 8. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the complainant-appellant fails and the same is hereby dismissed, after confirming the judgment of acquittal passed by the court below.