JUDGMENT Sabina, J. - Respondents No. 1 to 4 had faced trial in FIR No. 68/2006 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, District Alwar under Section 498A, 406, 307/34, 328/34 and 120B Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. Trial Court vide judgment dated 27.4.2009 ordered the acquittal of respondents No. 1 to 4. Hence, the present petition by the petitioner. 3. I have learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record available on the file carefully. 4. As per the prosecution story, petitioner had been harassed by the accused on account of demand of dowry. It is further the case of the petitioner that she had been given some poisonous substance by her husband and his family members and she had got treatment in this regard. 5. Learned trial court while ordering acquittal of the respondents No. 1 to 4 has held that keeping in view the medical evidence on record, it was not established that the petitioner had been given any poisonous substance by the accused or she had got the treatment in this regard. In-fact, the doctors who were examined during trial have deposed that the petitioner had not alleged that she had been given any poison nor any treatment was given to her in this regard. 6. Learned trial court further held that no offence under Section 498A and 406 IPC could be said to have been committed by the accused. In-fact, the story put forth by the petitioner that the accused had demanded Rs. 1,00,000/- or Rs. 50,000/- appears to be made up story. There was no occasion for the accused to have demanded the said amount after the petitioner was discharged from the hospital on 13.5.2006. Rather, it appeared that the story put forth by the petitioner that the accused had demanded dowry from her was a concocted one. 7. Hon''ble the Supreme Court in Allarakha K. Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, 2002(1) RCR (Criminal) 748, has held that where, in a case, two views are possible, the one which favours the accused, has to be adopted by the Court. 8. 7. Hon''ble the Supreme Court in Allarakha K. Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, 2002(1) RCR (Criminal) 748, has held that where, in a case, two views are possible, the one which favours the accused, has to be adopted by the Court. 8. Similarly, in Mrinal Das & others v. The State of Tripura, 2011 (9) Supreme Court Cases 479, the Hon''ble Supreme Court, after looking into various judgments, has laid down parameters, in which interference can be made in a judgment of acquittal, by observing as under: "8) It is clear that in an appeal against acquittal in the absence of perversity in the judgment and order, interference by this Court exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction, is not warranted. However, if the appeal is heard by an appellate court, being the final court of fact, is fully competent to re-appreciate, reconsider and review the evidence and take its own decision. In other words, law does not prescribe any limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and the appellate court is free to arrive at its own conclusion keeping in mind that acquittal provides for presumption in favour of the accused. The presumption of innocence is available to the person and in criminal jurisprudence every person is presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by the competent court. If two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the findings of acquittal. There is no limitation on the part of the appellate court to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is found and to come to its own conclusion. The appellate court can also review the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court with respect to both facts and law. While dealing with the appeal against acquittal preferred by the State, it is the duty of the appellate court to marshal the entire evidence on record and only by giving cogent and adequate reasons set aside the judgment of acquittal. An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are "compelling and substantial reasons", for doing so. If the order is "clearly unreasonable", it is a compelling reason for interference. An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are "compelling and substantial reasons", for doing so. If the order is "clearly unreasonable", it is a compelling reason for interference. When the trial Court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declaration/report of ballistic experts etc., the appellate court is competent to reverse the decision of the trial Court depending on the materials placed" 9. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the view taken by the trial court is a probable one and calls for no interference by this court. 10. Dismissed.