JUDGMENT 1. - This Cr. Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 7th February, 2011 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.5, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Appeal No. 177/2010 (752/2010), whereby she allowed the appeal and set-aside the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 3.7.2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate No. 15, Jaipur city, Jaipur in Cr. Case No. 665/2006 and consequently acquitted the accused respondent for the offence under Section 498A IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a complaint against the respondent for the offence under Sections 498A, 323, 341, 504, 120B IPC on the ground of committing cruelty, physical & mental harassment, torture. The said complaint was forwarded for investigation under Section 156(3) to police. After investigation, the police filed a challan in the competent court against the respondent for the offence under Section 498A IPC. Thereafter trial court took cognizance against the respondent and read over substance of the charge to the respondent, who denied for the same and claimed for trial. The prosecution produced its witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter the statement of the respondent was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the respondent vide his impugned judgment dated 3rd July, 2010. Against the said judgment, the respondent preferred an appeal. The appellate court vide judgment dated 7.2.2011 set-aside the judgment of conviction and sentence of the trial court and acquitted the respondent. 3. Against the said judgment, this revision petition was preferred. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the trial court, after due consideration of the evidence, passed the judgment of conviction, which has been set-aside by the appellate court by his judgment dated 7th February, 2011. The appellate court has wrongly appreciated the evidence available on record. He has further contended that the learned appellate court has committed serious jurisdictional error and has wrongly exercised its appellate jurisdiction while reversing the finding of the trial court without any justified reason whereas the trial court had appreciated each and every material available on record and after analyzing the oral and documentary evidence from all four corners the trial court held the accused respondent guilty for the offence under Section 498A IPC. He has further contended that the appellate court has erred in observing that parties have now divorced and petitioner is getting monthly maintenance as such now this case is nothing, but an example of malicious mentality and whatever evidence has been adduced by the complainant / prosecution has not sufficiently proved offence under Section 498A IPC against the respondent. He has further contended that the prosecution witnesses proved the prosecution case beyond all the reasonable doubt, but by ignoring the statement of prosecution witnesses, the learned appellate court acquitted the accused respondent from the charges levelled against him. Hence the Cr. Revision Petition should be allowed and the judgment of the appellate court be set-aside. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Peeyush Kumar, learned PP appearing for the State assisted by counsel for the accused respondent have contended that the appellate court has rightly acquitted the accused respondent and passed a detailed judgment after due consideration of the evidence submitted by both the parties, hence no interference is required by this Court in the judgment passed by the appellate Court. Peeyush Kumar, learned PP appearing for the State assisted by counsel for the accused respondent have contended that the appellate court has rightly acquitted the accused respondent and passed a detailed judgment after due consideration of the evidence submitted by both the parties, hence no interference is required by this Court in the judgment passed by the appellate Court. They have drawn the attention of this court on the relevant part of the judgment of the appellate court, which is reproduced as under: " vijk/k varxZr /kkjk 498&, vkbZ0ih0lh0 ,d yxkrkj tkjh jgus okyk vijk/k gS] ijUrq ifjokfn;k dks bu dzwjrkvksa ds lEcU/k esa oS'okfld lk{; nsuk vko';d gSA vf/koDrk ifjokfn;k&jsLiksaMsaV us cgl vafre ds nkSjku ;g rdZ Hkh fn;k fd vkt Hkh vihykFkhZ ml ij pfj=ghurk dk vkjksi yxk jgk gS] tks Lo;a esa ekufld izrkMuk gS vkSj blls vf/kd dksbZ dzjrk fdlh L=h ds fy, ugha gks ldrhA ge bl fcUnq ls iw.kZr;k lgerh j[krs gS] ijUrq ;g rF; ns[kus ;ksX; gS fd ifjokn esa fuxjkuhdrkZ ds }kjk dgh Hkh bl fof'k"V vkjksi dks vafdr ugha fd;k x;kA iqu% ;g rF; xkSjryc gS fd orZeku esa mHk; i{k ds e/; rykd gks pqdk gSA Hkj.k&iks"k.k dh jkf'k Hkh vihykFkhZ & vfHk;qDr ds }kjk yxHkx 12]000@& :i;s izfrekg vnk dh tk jgh gSA vr% ;g lEiw.kZ izdj.k dsoy ek= dqfRlr ekufldrk dk mnkgj.k ek= gSA izdj.k ds rgr viuh 'kkjhfjd ,oa ekufld dzwjrkvksa ds lEcU/k esa vko';d Fkk fd ifjokfn;k&fuxjkuhdrkZ Li"V ,oa oS'okfld lk{; is'k djs] ijUrq mlds }kjk tks lk{; is'k dh xbZ] og iw.kZr;k ypj o detksj jgh] mlds }kjk lk{; esa dsoy Lo;a ,oa vius nks cPpksa dks is'k fd;k] ;s nksuksa cPps gh izkFkfed rkSj ij tkfgj jgrk gS fd os viuh ekrk ds izHkko esa gSA bu lkf{k;ksa ds vfrfjDr mlus fdlh Lora= lk{kh] ftles mlus vius Lo;a ifjokn esa gokyk fn;k] is'k ugha fd;kA ;gkWa fd dksbZ vM+ksl&iM+ksl dk xokg Hkh i=koyh ds rgr eqLrxhlk ds i{k esa is'k ugha gqvkA fygktk ftl lk{; ij voyEcu djrs gq, v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds }kjk fu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k] og Lo;a esa lUnsg ls ijs oS'okfld r; ugha jgrkA vr% vkyksP; fu.kZ; fnukWad 3-7-2010 esa ikfjr nks"kfl)h dks vikLr fd;s tkus rFkk ifjokfn;k@jsLIkksaMsaV ds }kjk izLrqr fuxjkuh [kkfjt fd;k tkuk leqfpr izrhr gksrk gSA " 6. The court's attention was also drawn on the following judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:- " Umrao v. State of Haryana & Ors., SC 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." 7. 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 respondent and the learned appellate Court was right in acquitting the accused respondent. I have no reason to dissent from the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned appellate Court as the same appears to be reasonable and plausible in the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. 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. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned PP as well as the learned counsel for the accused respondent and also gone through the record of the case. 10. Having gone through the impugned judgment passed by the learned appellate court, I find that the learned appellate court has given cogent reasons for not finding the case of the prosecution proved against the accused respondent/s. Therefore, I do not want to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the learned appellate court and the revision petition filed by the complainant-petitioner is liable to be dismissed.Accordingly, the revision petition filed by the complainant-petitioner fails and the same is hereby dismissed, after confirming the judgment of acquittal passed by the appellate court. Revision dismissed. *******