JUDGMENT : MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J. 1. The petitioners have filed the present criminal revision petition being aggrieved by the judgment dated 14.06.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh in Appeal No. 65/2020 whereby, the appellate court rejected the appeal and upheld the judgment dated 18.08.2020 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh, whereby, the learned Judge acquitted the respondents for offence under Section 341, 324, 325/34 IPC. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the complainant lodged a written report to the effect that he is having ownership on the land in village Kaamaliya and there is a way for ingress and egress to his field. It was alleged that Badri lal created obstacle by erecting pillars. On 04.02.2015, when he and his brother Manohar Singh were going to reap the crop, the accused respondents came there carrying iron rods, knives and lathis and attacked them. It was stated that the petitioners sustained injuries of knife and iron rods. 3. On this report, the FIR was registered for offence under Sections 341, 323, 324, 325 and 34 IPC and the police started investigation. After investigation, the police filed challan against the respondents. Thereafter, charges were framed against the respondents for offence under Section 341, 324, 325/34 IPC. The accused respondents denied the charges and claimed trial. 4. The prosecution in support of its case examined seven witnesses and various documents were exhibited. The statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded, however, no documents were produced in defence. 5. After conclusion of trial, the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted the respondents from offence under Sections 341, 324 and 325/34 IPC vide judgment dated 18.08.2020. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, however, the same came to be dismissed by the appellate Court vide judgment dated 14.06.2023. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the Courts below without going through the entire record and evidence acquitted the respondents for 341, 324 and 325/34 IPC. It is submitted that there were cross cases between the parties and in cross case, the petitioners have been convicted for offence under Section 447, 323/34 IPC but acquitted the accused respondents in the present case. It is submitted that the accused respondents caused injuries to the petitioners and the petitioner no. It is submitted that there were cross cases between the parties and in cross case, the petitioners have been convicted for offence under Section 447, 323/34 IPC but acquitted the accused respondents in the present case. It is submitted that the accused respondents caused injuries to the petitioners and the petitioner no. 1 received grievous injury on his hand whereas, the injuries caused to the complainant in the cross case are simple in nature and not sustained by any weapon. Thus the judgment of the Courts below are liable to be set aside and the matter may be remanded back to the trial court for passing fresh order. 7. I have heard the counsels for the parties and gone through the material on record. 8. From the evidence on record so also finding arrived by the learned courts below, it appears that the accused respondents have been acquitted on the basis of statement of the witnesses as omnibus allegations were levelled against the respondents. The courts below came to the conclusion by way of detailed and speaking order that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused respondents beyond reasonable doubt. 9. In the light of aforesaid discussion, the petitioners have failed to show any error of law or on facts on the basis of which interference can be made by this Court in the judgment under challenge. 10. In the case of Mrinal Das and Others vs. State of Tripura, 2011 (9) SCC 479 , decided on September 5, 2011, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after looking into many earlier judgments, has laid down parameters, in which interference can be made in a judgment of acquittal, by observing as under: “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.” 11. 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.” 11. Similarly, in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Shera Ram alias Vishnu Dutta, (2012) 1 SCC 602 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “A judgment of acquittal has the obvious consequence of granting freedom to the accused. This Court has taken a consistent view that unless the judgment in appeal is contrary to evidence, palpably erroneous or a view which could not have been taken by the court of competent jurisdiction keeping in view the settled canons of criminal jurisprudence, this Court shall be reluctant to interfere with such judgment of acquittal.” 12. There is a very thin but a fine distinction between an appeal against conviction on the one hand and acquittal on the other. The preponderance of judicial opinion is that there is no substantial difference between an appeal against acquittal except that while dealing with an appeal against acquittal the Court keeps in view the position that the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused has been fortified by his acquittal and if the view adopted by the trial Court is a reasonable one and the conclusion reached by it had grounds well set out on the materials on record, the acquittal may not be interfered with. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to show any error of law or on facts on the basis of which interference can be made by this Court in the judgment under challenge. 13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present criminal revision petition has no substance and the same is hereby dismissed.