JUDGMENT : Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J. This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 31.3.2008 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FT) No.1, Jaipur city, Jaipur in sessions case no. 6/2006 whereby he has acquitted the respondents for the offence under Sections 498A, 406 and 328 & alternatively 328/34 IPC. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the complainant-petitioner has submitted a complaint on 1.7.2004 before Civil Judge (JD) & Judl. Magistrate No.13, Jaipur city, Jaipur against the respondents alleged that marriage of petitioner was solemnized with respondent Ramesh Kumar on 21.4.2003 and in the marriage, sufficient dowry was given. The said complaint was sent for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. And on the basis of the complaint, FIR No.83/2004 was registered at P.S. Mahila Thana (North) on 7.7.2004 for offence under Section 498A, 406 and 328 IPC. The police after completing the investigation, filed charge-sheet against the respondents. The court below committed the case to the court of sessions as the Section 328 in which the police filed charge-sheet was triable by session. The case was transferred to the court below for trial. The court below after hearing arguments, framed the charges for offence under Sections 498A, 406 and 328 IPC and alternatively 328/34 IPC. The charges were read over to respondents, to which they denied and claimed to be tried. On behalf of prosecution, as many as 16 witnesses were examined and certain documents were exhibited. Statement of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. After hearing the parties, the learned trial court acquitted the respondents vide order dated 31.3.2008. 3. Against the said order dated 31.3.2008, this revision petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the trial court has also not properly considered the relevant documents as also statements of prosecution witnesses. Hence impugned order dated 31.3.2008 be set aside. It has also been submitted that the finding arrived at by the court below is contrary to law, facts & material on record. It has erred in law in acquitting the accused persons from the aforesaid offences. There are ample evidence on record to prove that the petitioner has been subjected to cruelty. The petitioner was given beatings for demand of dowry. The learned court below has misread the evidence and not properly appreciated the evidence of PW-12 Bhagwan Sahai who was the independent witness. 5. There are ample evidence on record to prove that the petitioner has been subjected to cruelty. The petitioner was given beatings for demand of dowry. The learned court below has misread the evidence and not properly appreciated the evidence of PW-12 Bhagwan Sahai who was the independent witness. 5. 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 and contended that the court below has passed the order after due appreciation of evidence and material available on record, hence revision petition should be dismissed. 5. 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 and contended that the court below has passed the order after due appreciation of evidence and material available on record, hence revision petition should be dismissed. Relevant part of judgment of court below reads as under:- ^i=koyh ij ngst dh ekax dks ysdj dzwjrk dk O;ogkj djus vkSj ekufld :i ls rax ijs'kku djus ,oa nw/k esa tgj feykdj fiyk nsus vkfn ckcr izdj.k dh eq[; xokg Lo;a eqLrxhlk lquhrk eh.kk gh gS vkSj mlds c;kuksa esa lkjoku ,oa xaHkhj fojks/kkHkk"k gSA fojks/kkHkk"k bl lhek rd gS fd lR; dks feF;k ls vyx fd;k tkuk lEHko ugha jgk gSA tgka rd nksuksa i{kksa ds chp dh ehfVax esa gqbZ ckrksa dk iz'u gSA nksuksa gh i{kksa dh vksj ls bl lEcU/k esa lk{; is'k gqbZ gSA lk{; lQkbZ ds xokg ds vuqlkj llqjky i{k dh dksbZ xyrh ugha Fkh cfYd Lo;a eqLrxhlk dh xyrh gksuk ekuk gS vkSj vfHk;kstu i{k dh lk{; ds vuqlkj lquhrk ds llqj jkew eh.kk us viuh xyrh ekurs gq, ekQh ekaxh FkhA izdj.k esa vfHk;kstu i{k dh lEiw.kZ dgkuh xEHkhj fojks/kkHkk"kh] xEHkhj lansgksa o vfLFkjrkvksa ls Hkjh gqbZ gSA eSa lEiw.kZ lk{; o vfHkys[k dk voyksdu djus ds i'pkr tSlk fd iwoZ esa mYys[k fd;k x;k gS fu"d"kZ ds :i esa ;g ikrk gwa fd izn'kZ Mh&1 izsei= ds dkj.k lquhrk ds ifr o lkl llqj dks mlds pfj= ij xEHkhj lUnsg iSnk gks x;k] ftlds dkj.k iy Hkj esa gh 'kkafr ds LFkku ij v'kkfUr ds okrkoj.k us tUe ys fy;k vkSj lEiw.kZ >xM+s dh tM+ izn'kZ Mh&1 i= gS vkSj mlds ihNs fNih gqbZ dgkuh gSA eSa bl i= dks tcju vkSj cyiwoZd fy[kk;k gqvk gksuk ugha ikrk gwa eSa ;g ikrk gwa fd eqLrxhlk lquhrk eh.kk us vius cpko esa vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:) tgj nsus vkSj dzwjrk dk O;ogkj djus ds dFku vius cpko esa nsrs gq, eqdnek ntZ djok;k gS blesa lPpkbZ ugha izrhr gksrh gS fd okLro esa mlds lkFk dzwjrk dh xbZ gks vkSj mls vfHk;qDrx.k us tcju tgj fiyk;k gks] cfYd lPpkbZ ;g izrhr gksrh gS fd izdj.k dh tM+ esa izn'kZ Mh&1 izsei= gS vkSj dksbZ ngst dh ekax ;k vU; dksbZ dgkuh ugha gSA vr% miyC/k lk{; o vfHkys[k ds vk/kkj ij eSa ;g ikrk gwa fd vfHk;kstu i{k fcUnq la[;k 1 dks vius i{k esa lkfcr djus esa vlQy jgk gSA vr% pkjksa vfHk;qDrx.k dks Hkk0n0la0 dh /kkjk 498&,] 328 fodYi esa 328@34 ds rgr n.Muh; vijk/k ds vkjksi ls nks"keqDr fd;k tkrk gSA* 6. The court's attention was 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 respondents 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 learned courts below as the same appears to be reasonable and plausible in the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. It may be stated that in revision 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. 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 court below. Revision dismissed.