Judgment Deepak Girotra, J. 1. This petition for leave to appeal has been filed by the state challenging acquittal of the respondents of the charges under sections 148/307/325/323/149 IPC. Case of the prosecution is that a dispute was pending regarding watercourse between the accused persons on the one hand and the complainant Ashok Kumar PW3 on the other. On 15.1.2005 at 8 AM, when Ashok Kumar was passing in front of the house of Sat Narain son of Ram Sarup, Ram Kumar exhorted that ashok be taught a lesson. Ram Kumar was having a jaili, his son sanjiv was also having a jaili, Krishan son of Sat Narain was having a lathi, Manu was also having a lathi and Smt. Krishna was having a brick. They assaulted Ashok Kumar. Krishan hit lathi on the head of Ashok. Manu inflicted lathi blow hitting on his left hand. On hearing the commotion of fight, Dinesh PW13 and Karan Singh PW5 rescued Ashok Kumar. Ram Kumar, accused gave jaili blow on the head of Dinesh, Sanjiv also hit jaili on the head of Dinesh. Smt. Krishna threw brick at Praveen. Sanjiv gave jaili blow to Parveen on his face. Ram Kumar gave jaili blows to Ashok Kumar on his back. Krishan, accused gave beatings to Karan. Thereafter villagers assembled and the assailants fled away. Ram Kumar also sustained injuries. Ashok, parveen and Karan were taken to the Gannaur Hospital but were discharged after first aid. Dinesh was serious and was referred to general Hospital, Sonepat. The statement of Ashok Kumar was recorded by ASI Krishan Kumar PW10 at the Hospital Gate, gannaur, where he reached on receiving information. This led to registration of FIR. After completion of investigation, the accused were sent up for trial. The prosecution examined following witnesses:- PW1 SI Rajinder Singh pw2 SI Balbir Singh pw3 Ashok Kumar (complainant-injured)PW4 Constable Ram Naresh pw5 Karan Singh (injured)PW6 Sukhbir Singh, Medical Record technician, PGIMS , Rohtak. PW7 Dr. Ashwani Kumar of C. H. Sonepat crl. M. No.130 MA of 2007 3 pw8 Dr. Ashok Yadav of PGIMS Rohtak pw9 Dr. Atul Jhanwar of PGIMS Rohtak pw10 Dr. Manju Chaudhary CHC gannaur pw11 ASI Krishan Kumar (I. O)PW12 Dr. Mahender Singh Dy. CMO Sonepat pw13 Dinesh (injured)The accused denied the prosecution allegations. Accused Ram Kumar stated that he was falsely implicated. M. No.130 MA of 2007 3 pw8 Dr. Ashok Yadav of PGIMS Rohtak pw9 Dr. Atul Jhanwar of PGIMS Rohtak pw10 Dr. Manju Chaudhary CHC gannaur pw11 ASI Krishan Kumar (I. O)PW12 Dr. Mahender Singh Dy. CMO Sonepat pw13 Dinesh (injured)The accused denied the prosecution allegations. Accused Ram Kumar stated that he was falsely implicated. He stated that he and his wife Smt. Darshana were present in their house when Ashok Kumar, Chander Bhan, Karan Singh, Jai bhagwan, Rajesh, Rakesh, Dinesh and Parveen forcibly entered in their house with weapons and they assaulted him and his wife. On hearing the commotion, Krishna and Deepak came to the spot who were also assaulted. On hearing alarm, villagers rescued them. In the scuffle, Ashok Kumar, Parveen, Krishan and Dinesh may have received injuries. In defence, Dr. Bhawana Kashyap DW1 was examined. 2 After considering the evidence on record, the trial court did not accept the version of the prosecution. The trial court found that there was a civil litigation pending between the parties, as shown by plaint Ex. D1. Ram Kumar had filed a suit against the accused party wherein status quo order had been passed. The manner and extent of injuries on the person of the accused created doubt about the accused persons being the aggressors. Injuries on ram Kumar were on head and nose and could not be held to be self-suffered. Genesis of the occurrence had been suppressed and the nature of injuries caused on the accused persons created a doubt about the manner of occurrence. The accused were held to be entitled to benefit of doubt. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the State and perused the reasons given by the trial court for acquittal in para 12 to 29 of the impugned judgment. We are unable to hold that the reasons given by the trial court for acquittal of the respondents are perverse. It has been proved that the accused had also suffered serious injuries, which was inconsistent with the version of the prosecution. Even if two views are possible, interference with the order of acquittal is not called for. Scope of appeal against acquittal has been gone into by 4. The Hon ble Supreme Court, inter-alia, in Jaswant Singh V/s. State of Haryana, AIR 2000 SC 1833, wherein it was observed:- "21. Even if two views are possible, interference with the order of acquittal is not called for. Scope of appeal against acquittal has been gone into by 4. The Hon ble Supreme Court, inter-alia, in Jaswant Singh V/s. State of Haryana, AIR 2000 SC 1833, 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 Cri LJ 1783) ). The principle was elucidated in Ramesh Babulal Doshi V/s. State of Gujarat, (1996) 9 SCC 225: 1996 AIR SCW crl. M. No.130 MA of 2007 5 2438: AIR 1996 SC 2035 (1996 Cri 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 question 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. " In view of above, we do not find any ground to grant leave to appeal.