JUDGMENT 1.Heard finally with the consent of parties. 2. This criminal revision under 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is preferred by the petitioner/complainant against the judgment of acquittal dated 27-01-2009 passed by learned lower appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 2008 whereby the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 24-12-2007 passed by learned JMFC, Bhind in Criminal Case No. 740 of 2006 has been reversed and respondents No. 2 and 3 have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 452 and 323 (two counts) of IPC. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while making reference to the evidence on record submitted that the appellate Court has erred in appreciating the evidence in its pith and substance and judgment of acquittal deserves to be interfered with. 4. Having regard to the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties, entire evidence on record and the reasonings basing upon the acquittal of respondents No. 2 and 3 accused have been examined. 5. After critical evaluation of the evidence of Chhotelal Mishra (PW-1), Mahila Kusumlata Dubey (PW-2), Ashok Dubey (PW-3), Krishnakumari Dubey (PW-4), Shyamswaroop Dixit (PW-5), Chandrakant Vajpayee (PW-6), Ramkishore Mishra (PW-7), S.K. Paliwal (PW-8), Dr. J.P.S. Kushwah (PW-9), the appellate court comes to hold that the evidence of the prosecution is not worthy of credence, as the same was full of exaggerations, omissions and contradictions. Learned appellate Court has held that under criminal jurisprudence, prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Learned appellate Court further held that from the facts of the case it is clear that since a criminal case was registered against the complainant Chhotelal Mishra (PW-1) for demolishing a wall, therefore, only to create defence he has lodged the present report. This fact is admitted by the eye-witness Shyamswaroop Dixit (PW-5) in his evidence. More so, Chandrakant Vajpayee (PW-6) in his statement has denied with regard to happening of incident even. Thus, after having appreciated the evidence as a whole of the prosecution, the learned appellate court held that there is not a single iota of evidence against the accused to connect them with the alleged offence and trial Court has committed error in convicting respondents No.2&3. Thus, after having appreciated the evidence as a whole of the prosecution, the learned appellate court held that there is not a single iota of evidence against the accused to connect them with the alleged offence and trial Court has committed error in convicting respondents No.2&3. Even otherwise, it is well settled in law that the revisional powers can be exercised only if there is a flagrant miscarriage of justice in the sense that the findings are against evidence and facts, but where the acquittal is recorded after due appreciation of the evidence on record, interference by the revisional court normally is not warranted. 6. That apart, it is settled law that when two views are possible then the view which is in favour of accused should be taken, which has been taken by learned appellate Court thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal is well merited and no interference is called for. 7. Testing the reasonings of acquittal on the touchstone of the said settled principles of law, the approach of the appellate court seems to be reasonable, plausible and possible from the evidence recorded. The judgment assailed in the revision therefore does not call for any interference looking to the period of ordeal of trial and appeal faced by respondents No. 2 and 3. Resultantly, the revision fails and is hereby dismissed for want of substance.