JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner has filed the present criminal revision petition being aggrieved by the judgment dt. 15.12.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Hanumangarh in Appeal No. 01/2020 whereby, the appellate court dismissed the appeal and upheld the order passed by Gram Nyayalay, Hanumangarh, in Criminal Case No. 210/2019, whereby, learned trial court acquitted the respondents Bhura Singh and Baltej Singh from the offence under Sections 448, 323, 341, 34 IPC but while convicting the accused respondents Jaskaran Singh and Ranjeet Singh, granted the benefit of probation under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner complainant lodged a written report before SHO, Police station Mahila Thana against the respondents stating therein that on 07.02.2014, at about 7:30 PM, when he was at his house, the accused Bhura Singh, Jaskaran, his wife and brother in law Baltej Singh armed with weapons forcibly entered into his house and started beating him and his wife due to which they sustained injuries. 3. On this report, the FIR was registered and the police started investigation. After investigation, the police filed challan against the accused respondents for offence under Sections 448, 323, 341, 34 IPC. Thereafter, charges were framed against the accused respondents. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as seven witnesses and various documents were exhibited. The statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded wherein, they denied the charges and claimed trial. 4. After conclusion of trial, the court of Gram Nyayalay, Hanumangarh acquitted the respondents Bhura Singh and Baltej Singh from the offence under Sections 448, 323, 341, 34 IPC but while convicting the accused respondents Jaskaran Singh and Ranjeet Singh, granted the benefit of probation under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act vide order dated 03.03.2020. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act Cases), Hanumangarh. The appellate court dismissed the appeal and upheld the order passed by learned Gram Nyayalay vide judgment dated 15.12.2023. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act Cases), Hanumangarh. The appellate court dismissed the appeal and upheld the order passed by learned Gram Nyayalay vide judgment dated 15.12.2023. 5. Counsel for the complainant petitioner submits that both the courts below have committed an error in acquitting the respondents Bhura Singh and Baltej Singh from the offence under Sections 448, 323, 341, 34 IPC and granting benefit of probation under Section 4 of Probation Act to the accused respondents Jaskaran Singh and Ranjeet Singh and adequate punishment should have been imposed upon the respondents but the trial court has adopted a lenient view without any valid reason. It is argued that the trial court acquitted the respondents Bhura Singh and Baltej Singh on the basis of minor contradictions in the statement of the witnesses. It is argued that the learned trial court ignored the evidence brought on record which resulted into erroneous acquittal of the accused respondents Bhura singh and Baltej Singh. It is argued that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and there was no occasion whatsoever to take a lenient view towards respondents Jaskaran Singh and Ranjeet Singh. Therefore, the impugned orders may be set aside and the accused respondents No. 2 to 5 may be adequately punished for the alleged offences. 6. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and gone through the material on record. 7. From the evidence on record so also finding arrived by the learned trial court, it appears that the learned trial court has convicted the accused respondents Jaskaran Singh and Ranjeet Singh on the basis of statement of the witnesses so also the injury report of injured. The courts below came to the conclusion by way of detailed and speaking order that the prosecution has proved the charges against the accused Jaskaran Singh and Ranjeet Singh beyond reasonable doubt. However, looking to the fact that the respondents accused are facing protracted trial so also mental and physical agony since 2014 so also there are no criminal antecedents against the respondents Jaskaran Singh and Ranjeet Singh, the appellate court has granted the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. 8. However, looking to the fact that the respondents accused are facing protracted trial so also mental and physical agony since 2014 so also there are no criminal antecedents against the respondents Jaskaran Singh and Ranjeet Singh, the appellate court has granted the benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. 8. After considering the evidence available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the appellate court has not committed any error in convicting the accused respondent Jaskaran Singh and Ranjeet Singh and granting benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act taking into consideration the injuries and that the respondents have been facing protracted trial so also mental and physical agony since 2014. 9. So far as the accused Bhura singh and Baltej Singh are concerned, it is settled proposition of law that the burden of proof of showing that an offence has been committed by the accused is on the prosecution. The prosecution has to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed the crime. 10. In the instant case, the trial court while acquitting the accused respondents Bhura singh and Baltej Singh has observed that prosecution has failed to prove its case against the aforesaid respondents. The court below came to the conclusion by way of detailed and speaking order that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused respondent Bhura singh and Baltej Singh beyond reasonable doubt. 11. In the case of 'Mrinal Das & others v. The 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. 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. Similarly, in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram alias Vishnu Dutta, reported (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 petitioner 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 revision petition has no substance and the same is hereby dismissed.