Judgment Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. 1. The complainant is aggrieved by acquittal of the respondents of the charges under Sections 324/ 323/34, IPC. 2. Case of the complainant is that Baldev raj, accused had contested election of sarpanch against Hans Raj, father of the complainant. On 26.8.1994 at 10.30 a,m. , baldev Raj, accused along with others started digging earth from the house of the father of the complainant. Hans Raj, father of the complainant, objected to this. Baldev raj instigated his co-accused to teach him a lesson. Baldev Raj was having Belcha and he gave two blows on her head. Rano Devi and Ashok Rani caught hold of her while neelam Devi gave three blows on her back and shoulder with a Thapi. Dev Raj gave a datri blow on the left ear and Hans Raj gave one Datri blow on the chest of Hans Raj from wrong side. Baldev Raj also gave bite on her right index finger. On raising of alarm, subhash Chander, Om Parkash, Mangat ram and Vijay Kumar intervened and saved them. She and her father were taken to Civil hospital, Narot Jaimal Singh, where they were medically examined. Since police did not take action, complaint was filed. 3. The complainant examined PWl Dr. Puran Chand, PW2 Hans Raj, and PW3 bachni Devi, the complainant herself. 4. Charges were framed under Sections 324/323/34, IPC. The accused denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication. 5. Pwl Dr. Puran Chand also medically examined Baldev Raj accused and found following injuries: "1. Vertical incised wound 2 cm. x 0.2 cm bone deep on the left side of forehead 6 cm. from left eye-brow and 9 cm. from left ear. Fresh bleeding starts on cleaning the wound.2. Contused reddish swelling in an area of 4 cm. x 4 cm. on the left side of back 6 cm. from left shoulder tender (Advised X-ray back and shoulder AP lateral view ). " 6. Injury No.2 was declared grievous. Ex. Dl is the copy of MLR. 7. The trial Court after appreciating evidence on record, held that case of the prosecution was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. It was observed that injuries on the person of Baldev Raj were not explained and the nature of injuries was quite serious. This created doubt about the genesis of the prosecution version. 8. We have perused the reasons for acquittal. The trial Court after appreciating evidence on record, held that case of the prosecution was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. It was observed that injuries on the person of Baldev Raj were not explained and the nature of injuries was quite serious. This created doubt about the genesis of the prosecution version. 8. We have perused the reasons for acquittal. No doubt, the complainants side has received injuries, but at the same time, accused has also received injuries, which have not been duly explained. 9. In these circumstances, the view taken by the trial Court cannot be held to be perverse so as to call for interference with the acquittal of the respondents. 10. Scope of appeal against acquittal has been gone into by the Honble Supreme court, inter alia, in Jaswant Singh V/s. Stata. of Haryana wherein it was observed: "21. The principle to be followed by Appellate Courts considering an appeal against an order of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the order is clearly unreasonable it is a compelling reason for interference (see Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade V/s. State of Maharashtra, (1973 2 SCC 793: AIR 1973 SC 2622: 1973 Cr. LJ 1783 ). The principle was elucidated in Ramesh babulal Doshi V/s. State of Gujarat, (1996) 9 SCC 225: 1996 AIR SCW 2438: air 1996 SC 2035: 1996 Cr. LJ 2867: "while sitting in judgment over an acquittal the Appellate Court is first required to seek an answer to the question whether the findings of the trial Court are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. If the Appellate Court answers the above qutestion in the negative the order of Acquittal is not to be disturbed. Conversely, if the appellate Court holds, for reasons to be recorded, that the order of acquittal cannot at all be sustained in view of any of the above infirmities it can then and then only reappraise the evidence to arrive at its own conclusions. " The appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.