JUDGMENT : Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J. This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 18.10.2003 passed by learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge (FT), Gangapur city in sessions case no. 42/2003 whereby he has acquitted the respondent from the charge under Section 450/376 IPC. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the complainant-petitioner has lodged an FIR No.102/2003 against one Lakhim for offence under Section 448/376 IPC at P.S. Vazirpur regarding incident dated 17.5.2003. The police after investigation, filed challan under Section 451/376 IPC against the respondent. After hearing the arguments, charges under Section 450 and 376 IPC were framed against respondent. Prosecution in support of their case, examined as many as 16 witnesses and got exhibited certain documents. Statement of accused under Section 313 cR.P.C. Was recorded. In defence DW-1 Ramphal, DW-2 Tejram, DW-3 Chitanji Lal and exhibits Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-5 were produced. After hearing both the parties, learned court below acquitted the respondent from the offence under Section 450 and 376 IPC vide order dated 18.10.2003. 3. Against the said order dated 18.10.2003, the petitioner-complainant prefers this revision petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the court below has not properly considered the relevant documents as also statements of prosecution witnesses. Hence impugned order dated 18.10.2003 be set aside. It is also submitted that the order of court below is patently illegal and perverse to the facts and material available on record. The court below has acted beyond jurisdiction, while acquitting the accused respondent. It has also wrongly disbelieved the evidence of the prosecution on surmises. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing as amicus curiae for the respondent as also Public Prosecutor have opposed the same and supported the impugned order passed by Court below 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 as amicus curiae for the respondent as also Public Prosecutor have opposed the same and supported the impugned order passed by Court below 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. He has drawn attention of this court towards relevant part of judgment of court below which is reproduced as under: tgka rd fof/k foKku iz;ksx'kkyk dh fjiksVZ izn'kZ ih&29 esa eqyfte dh pM~Mh o ifjokfn;k ds ygaxk ij ekuooh;Z dh mifLFkfr dk iz'u gS] fo}ku odhy eqyfte dh vksj ls vkj0,y0vkj0 2003¼1½ ist 47&nqxkZyky cuke jktLFkku jkT;] uthj izLrqr dh xbZ gS] ftlesa ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k tkrk gS fd eqyfte dks rhu fnu ckn fxj~rkj fd;k x;k] vr% mlds 'kjhj ij igus gq, diM+ksa esa oh;Z dh mifLFkfr mldks vijk/k ls tksM+us ds fy, lqlaxr lk{; ugha ekuh tk ldrhA eSa mDr of.kZr fl)kUr ls iw.kZr% lger gwaA bl izdj.k esa Hkh vfHk;qDr xksfoUn lgk; dks ?kVuk ds rhljs fnu fxj~rkj fd;k x;k gSA ,slh voLFkk esa ek= pM~Mh ij oh;Z dh mifLFkfr vfHk;qDr dks cykRdkj ls tksM+us ds fy, i;kZIr ugha ekuh tk ldrh gSA tgka rd ?kVukLFky ls VwVh pwfM+;ka tIr gksus dk iz'u gS] ;fn Nhuk >iVh esa pwfM+;ka VwVs] rks pwM+h iguus ds LFkku ij [kjksap vkuk vko';d gS] ysfdu bl izdj.k esa ifjokfn;k dh dykbZ ij dksbZ [kjksap ds fu'kku ugha gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa bl izdj.k esa pwfM+;k cjkenxh ls Hkh vfHk;kstu dks dksbZ leFkZu ugha feyrk gSA mDr dfe;ksa ds dkj.k eql0 foyek dh lk{; fo'oluh; ugha jg tkrh gSA tgka rd ih0M0&7 deyk dh lk{; dk iz'u gS] mlus viuh ftjg esa dgk gS fd jkr va/ksjh Fkh vkSj og ekSds ij vkbZ] rks mlus ns[kk fd foeyk us xksfoUn lgk; dks idM+ j[kk Fkk rFkk y{eh dks 50&60 QhV nwj Hkkxrs ns[kkA va/ksjh jkr esa mlus y{eh dks 50&60 QhV nwj ls dSls igpku fy;k] ;g rF; Li"V ugha gks ik;k gSA fdl jks'kuh esa mlus y{eh dks ns[kk] ;g mlus Li"V ugha fd;k gSA ,slh voLFkk esa mldh lk{; fo'oluh; ugha jg tkrh gSA ih0Mh0&7 deyk dk ;g dFku gS fd og nch&nch vkokt lqudj fiNokM+s esa xbZ] tcfd ih0M0&6 foeyk Li"V rkSj ij ;g dgrh gS fd og fpYykbZ Fkh vkSj fpYykus dh vkokt lqudj mldh cgu o thtk vk;s FksA bl izdkj deyk dk ;g dguk fd og foeyk dh nch vkokt ij vius ifr ls igys ekSds ij igqaph] deyk dh fo'oluh;rk dks fopfyr djrk gSA oSls Hkh izd`fr ds lkekU; vuqdze esa ;fn dksbZ L=h e/; jkf= esa vius ?kj ds fiNokM+s esa dksbZ lansgkLin ifjfLFkfr;ksa ij 'kd djs vkSj mldk ifr mlds ikl gh lks jgk gks] rks ;g laHko ugha gS fd og ifr dks txk;s fcuk vdsyh edku ds fiNokM+s esa pyh tk;sA ,slh voLFkk esa deyk dk vdsys edku ds fiNokM+s esa tkuk Hkh fo'oluh; izrhr ugha gksrk gSA bl izdj.k esa ,sls dksbZ rF; ugha vk;s gSa] ftlls ;g Li"V gks fd vfHk;ksD=h foeyk dks eqyfte us Hk; fn[kkdj mlds lkFk cykRdkj fd;k gksA foeyk dk Hkh ;g dFku gS fd mlus izfrjks/k fd;k FkkA ,slh voLFkk esa foeyk ds 'kjhj ij pksVsa vkuk vko';d Fkk] ysfdu fQj mlds 'kjhj ij pksVsa ugha gS] blls Hkh foeyk dh lk{; lansgkLin gks tkrh gSA ;g fufoZokn gS fd y{eh eqyfte xksfoUn lgk; dk pkpk gS] rFkk og jktdh; lsok esa gSA pkpk Hkrhts dk ,d lkFk tkuk ;k pkpk dk Hkrhts }kjk cykRdkj djus ds d`R; esa enn djuk izd`fr ds lkekU; vuqdze esa lEHko izrhr ugha gksrk gSA bl vk/kkj ij Hkh vfHk;ksD=h dh lk{; vfo'oluh; gks tkrh gSA ;g lR; gS fd cykRdkj ds ekeys esa vfHk;ksD=h ds dFkuksa dh iqf"V vko';d ugha gS] ysfdu mDr fo'ys"k.k esa vfHk;ksD=h dh lk{; lansgkLin ekuh xbZ gS] ,slh voLFkk esa izdj.k esa vU; Lora= lkf{k;ksa dk izLrqr gksuk vko';d izrhr gksrk gSA tgka rd vU; Lora= lkf{k;ksa dk ekSds ij vkus dk iz'u gS] izn'kZ Mh&2 c;ku /kkjk 164 n0iz0la0 eql0 foeyk esa mlus dgk gS fd xkao ds dbZ yksx bdV~Bs gks x;s FksA ih0M0&6 ds :i esa ijhf{kr gksrs oDr Hkh foeyk us viuh lk{; esa dgk gS fd gekjh vkokt lqudj xkao ds dbZ yksx vk x;s FksA jkefuokl ih0M0&9 us vius c;ku /kkjk 161 n0iz0la0 ds lh ls Mh Hkkx esa dgk gS fd gekjs xkao okys vk x;s] ftUgksaus xksfoUn lgk; dks Hkkxrs gq, ns[kk gS] ysfdu U;k;ky; ijh{k.k esa ;g xokg bl rF; dks >wBk dgrk gSA blls ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd Lora= xokgku ds fcUnq dks vfHk;kstu us xkS.k j[kk gS] ftlls oLrq fLFkfr Li"V ugha gks ikbZ gSA mDr fo'ys"k.k ds vk/kkj ij vfHk;kstu dk dsl lUnsg ls ijs lkfcr ugha ekuk tk ldrkA vfHk;qDr vkjksfir vijk/k /kkjk 450 o 376 Hkk0n0la0 ds vijk/kksa ls nks"keqDr fd;s tkus ;ksX; 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. 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.