Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—This revision petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 3.12.2003 passed by learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track No. 1), Ajmer in sessions case No. 27/2003 whereby he has acquitted all the accused respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 376/511 IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 18.11.2002, complainant-petitioner submitted a written report/complaint before the Dy. S.P., Ajmer to the effect that after seeing his both daughters Safita, aged 18-19 years and younger daughter Naina, accused Azeem, Munna and Ajmat along with Azeez and Bablu, outraged both of them. On hearing hue and cries of younger daughter Naina, neighbouers of Meena caste came at the place of incident and on their intervention, all the accused ran away. 3. On receiving the said report, police registered the case being FIR No. 162/2002 at P.S. Mahila Thana, Ajmer for the offence under Sections 354, 376/511 IPC. After investigation, police filed challan before the court of learned Addl. Chief Judl. Magistrate No. 1, Ajmer against the respondents for the offence under Sections 376(2)(g) and 511 IPC, who committed the case to the court of learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer, from where it was transferred to the court of Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Ajmer for trial. Thereafter the trial Court framed the charges for the offence under Sections 354, 376/511 IPC against accused Munna and Sec. 354 IPC against all remaining accused-respondents. The respondents denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and prayed to be tried. 4. The prosecution in support of its case, examined as many as 15 prosecution witnesses and also exhibited 17 documents in evidence. The statements of accused-respondents were also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence the accused exhibited 7 documents. After hearing all the parties, the learned trial court acquitted the accused respondents vide its judgment & order dated 3.12.2003, and against the said judgment & order of acquittal, this revision petition has been preferred. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the trial court has not passed the impugned order after due appreciation of evidence. It is also contended that the petitioner has not considered the evidence of Smt. Safita (PW.1), who categorically established her case and disclosed that the accused committed the alleged offence. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the trial court has not passed the impugned order after due appreciation of evidence. It is also contended that the petitioner has not considered the evidence of Smt. Safita (PW.1), who categorically established her case and disclosed that the accused committed the alleged offence. He has drawn attention of this court towards the statement of PW.4 Naina, PW.14 Bhanwar, and PW.15 Smt. Meera who corroborate the version of PW.1 Safita. He has also drawn attention towards the statements of PW.8 Dr. Sumer Singh who disclosed in his statement that prosecutrix Safita and her sister were complaining regarding the pain in her stomach, back and thighs. The attention towards statements of prosecution witnesses was also drawn, but the Dy. S.P. has not been produced before the trial court and it is contended that it is the fault of the prosecution. 6. On the other hand, Mr. B.B. Ojha, counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Mahendra Tiwari, for the respondents, as also learned Public Prosecutors have contended that the trial court after due appreciation of evidence has acquitted the accused-respondents and they supported the judgment of trial Court. They have also drawn attention of this court towards the star witnesses PW.5 Vidhya @ Banjamin, PW.10 Smt. Saroj and PW.7 Chandra Prakash who have been declared hostile. Further it has been contended that there are material contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgment dated 3.12.2003 as also material available on record. Further it has been contended that there are material contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgment dated 3.12.2003 as also material available on record. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the trial Court in the impugned order dated 3.12.2003, which are reproduced as under: ^^mDr fLFkfr dks ns[krs gq, la{ksi esa nksuksa i{kksa ds chp esa IykWV dk fookn gS] ?kVuk ds rqjar ckn eqUuk dks /kkjk 151 na-iz-la- esa fxjrkj fd;k x;k gS rFkk ;g ik;k x;k fd nksuksa i{kksa ds chp esa IykaV dks ysdj >xM+k gks jgk FkkA vfHk;kstu i{k dh vksj ls izLrqr lk{khx.k ds c;kuksa esa fojks/kkHkkl gS] ifjoknh Hkaoj }kjk iqfyl Fkkuk fØf'p;uxat] esa loZizFke izLrqr dh xbZ rFkkdfFkr fjiksVZ dks izLrqr ugha fd;s tkus ls mDr fLFkfr;ksa esa lk{khx.k ds c;kuksa dks vo/kkfjr iz'u ckcr fo'oluh; ugha ekuk tk ldrk gS vkSj vfHk;kstu i{k ;g lkfcr djus esa vlQy jgk gS fd vfHk;qDrx.k us lQhrk dh yTtk Hkax djus ds vk'k; ls vkijkf/kd cy iz;ksx fd;kA fo}ku vij yksd vfHk;kstd dh vksj ls izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa dk llEeku voyksdu djus ds i'pkr~ U;kf;d n`"Vkar 1997 lh-vkj-,y-vkj- loksZPp U;k;ky; ist 724 esa ;g er izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS fd vfHk;qDr cykRlax rS;kjh esa vkxs c<+ x;k Fkk rks cykRlax dk iz;kl ekuk tkosxk] ysfdu bl izdj.k esa ,slh dksbZ ckr ugha gSA vU; U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa esa ;g crk;k x;k gS fd vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh }kjk lgh dk;Z ugha djus ls rFkk ek= nq'euh gksus ds dkj.k vfHk;ksD=h ds c;kuksa dks o vfHk;kstu dgkuh dks vfo'oluh; ugha ekuk tk ldrk gS] ysfdu gLrxr izdj.k esa Lora= lk{khx.k us Hkh vfHk;kstu dgkuh dk leFkZu ugha fd;k gS vkSj nksuksa i{kksa dh IykWV dh jaft'k lkfcr gS rFkk >xM+s dh ?kVuk ds ckn vfHk;qDr eqUuk dks /kkjk 151 n-iz-la- esa fxjrkj Hkh fd;k x;k gS] bu fLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq,] mDr foospu ls] mDr U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa ls Hkh vfHk;kstu i{k dh dksbZ enn ugha feyrh gSA mijksDr foospu ds vuqlkj vfHk;kstu i{k nksuksa vo/kkfjr iz'uksa dks vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:) lkfcr djus esa vlQy jgk gS] vr% vfHk;qDrx.k nks"keqDr gksus ;ksX; gSA** 8. The court's attention was drawn on the following judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court:- Umrao vs. State of Harayana & Ors. SC 2006 Vol. The court's attention was drawn on the following judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court:- Umrao vs. State of Harayana & 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." 9. 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 and the learned trial Court was right in acquitting the accused respondents. I have no rason to dissent from the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court as the same appears to be reasonable and plausible in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. It may be stated that in revision/appeal against acquittal though powers of the High Court to reassess the evidence and to reach its own conclusions are as extensivee as in an appeal/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 judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; the presumption of innocenc 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. 11. Accordingly, the revision filed by the complainant-petitioner fails and the same is hereby dismissed, after confirming the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court.