IN THE HHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. S.B.Cr.Appeal 585/2005. State of Rajasthan Vs. Brijraj @ Birji Date of Judgment: 21.5.2009 Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mahesh Chandra Sharma. Mr.Peeyush Kumar P.P for the State. Mr.R.P.Vijay for the respondent. The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 29.6.2001, passed by the Special Judge (Woman Atrocities & Dowry Cases), Kota in Sessions Case No.7/1999 whereby he acquitted the accused respondent from the offence under Sections 367 & 377 IPC. The brief facts of the case are that on 3.3.1998, the complainant Radheyshyam submitted a written report (Ex.P.1) at ..2.. police station Symliya in which he has stated that on 2nd March 1998 at about 12 A.M, when he was teaching in Government School Moti Kuwa where he called Radhey Shyam outside the school and committed unnatural sex. Upon the aforesaid incident,the police registered a case(FIR No.44/98) for the offence under Section 367 & 377 IPC and investigation started. After investigation, police filed a challan for the offence under Section 367 & 377 IPC before the court of Civil Judge (Jr.Dvn.) & Judicial Magistrate Digod who committed the case to the court of Sessions Judge, Kota. Thereafter, the case was again transferred to the court of Judge Special Judge (Woman Atrocities & Dowry Cases), Kota who framed charges against accused for the offence under Section 377 & 367 IPC and the charges were read over ..3.. and explained to the accused respondent who denied all the allegations and claimed for trial. During trial, the prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 9 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter, the statements of accused respondent were also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial court through its judgment and order dated 29.6.2001 acquitted the accused respondent from the charges framed against them. Aggrieved against the judgment and order of acquittal the learned trial court dated 29.6.2001 the State of Rajasthan has preferred the present appeal with the prayer to quash the same. ..4.. In this appeal it has been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the learned trial court has not appreciated the statement of prosecution witnesses properly. Therefore, the judgment is liable to be quashed and set-aside. Lastly he contended that in view of the above, the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the court below be quashed and set- aside and the accused respondent be punished under Section 367 & 377 IPC. He further contended that P.W.1 Radheyshyam has lodged complaint and the statement of P.8 Prembai fully supported the prosecution story. But the trial court has disbelieving the statements of prosecution witnesses illegally acquitted the accused respondent only on the ground that FIR was lodged by delay of 24 hours. ..5.. He contended that for the delay of lodging FIR the prosecution has given sufficient reason before the trial court through it's witnesses from which it appears that the father and mother of the Radheyshyam were not in the house. On the other hand, Mr.R.P.Vijay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused respondent has urged this Court that the learned trial court has given proper attention to the statement given by the prosecution witnesses in accordance with law and given cogent reason for acquitting the accused respondents after proper appreciation of evidence, hence, no interference is called for by this Court. Learned counsel for the accused respondent further contended that in the statement of star witness P.W.8 Shri Vishnu ..6.. Prasad Sharma been declared hostile. He further contended that there was no satisfactory explanation for the delay of lodging FIR. He has drawn attention of this Court on the statement of P.W.6 Dr.Prem Chand Khandelwal who has completely denied through his medical report Ex.P-5 that unnatural sexual offence has been committed against Radheyshyam. I have heard learned Public prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the accused respondent and also gone through the record of the case. Having gone through the impugned judgment and order dated 29.6.2001, passed by the learned the Special Judge (Woman Atrocities & Dowry Cases), Kota, I find the learned trial court has given cogent reasons for ..7.. holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence against the accused- respondent. In my considered opinion, the reasonings given by the learned trial Court cannot be said to be erroneous one. The court attention was drawn on the following judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Umrao Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.,reported in 2006 SC Vol 10 Page 136 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:- “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”. Looking to the evidence just discussed above, it can easily be said that the ..8.. prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused respondent for the offence for which they have been charged and the learned trial court was right in acquitting the accused respondent. I have no reason to disagree with he finding of acquittal recorded by the leaned trial court, as they appear to be reasonable and plausible in the facts and circumstances of the case. In appeal, the 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 weight and consideration to the views of the trial judges as to the credibility of the witnesses, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, right of ..9.. the accused to the benefit of any doubt and thus, High Court should not ordinarily disturb the order of acquittal passed by the court below. Therefore, this court does not want to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial court and this appeal is liable to be dismissed. In view of the above, this appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan fails and the same is hereby dismissed by confirming the judgment and order of acquittal dated 29.6.2001, passed by the learned Special Judge (Woman Atrocities & Dowry Cases), Kota. (Mahesh Chandra Sharma)J. k.