JUDGMENT : Manoj Kumar Garg, J. 1. The petitioner complainant has filed the present Criminal revision against the judgment dated 06.06.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Bhilwara in Appeal No.18/2016 whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and upheld the order dated 11.05.2016 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate (East) Bhilwara in whereby, he acquitted the accused for offence under Section 452/34, 384/34 and Section 323/34 IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant submitted a written report at Police station Pratap Nagar, Bhilwara stating therein that on 08.11.2017 when she was alone in her house, at that time, accused persons armed with sticks and weapons forcibly entered into her house and started beating her. They also obtained her signatures on black papers and damaged household articles. On this report a FIR No. 551/2010 was registered against the respondents for offence under Sections 452, 354, 323, 384, 341, 120B IPC. After investigation, challan was presented against the respondents before the competent court. 3. The trial Court framed charge against the accused respondents for offence under Section 452/34, 384/34, 323/34 IPC. The accused respondents denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution in support of its case recorded statements of eight witnesses and exhibited various documents. The statement of accused respondents under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded but he did not produce any evidence in defence. After hearing arguments of both the sides, the trial Court acquitted the accused respondents for the charge under Section 452/34, 384/34, 323/34 IPC vide judgment dated 11.05.2016. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant petitioner preferred an appeal before the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2 who vide order dated 06.06.2017 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment dated 11.05.2016. Hence, this revision petition. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Court below without going through the entire record and evidence wrongly acquitted the accused respondents for the offence charged against them. The court below while passing the impugned order did not consider the statements of witnesses and documents in correct perspective. Hence, this revision petition. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Court below without going through the entire record and evidence wrongly acquitted the accused respondents for the offence charged against them. The court below while passing the impugned order did not consider the statements of witnesses and documents in correct perspective. It is submitted that the learned courts below has wrongly acquitted the respondents on the basis of minor contraditions in the statement of prosecution witnesses so also certain prosecution witnesses being hostile whereas, merely on the basis of testimony of hostile witnesses, it cannot be assumed that the incident did not take place. The learned courts below have also ignored the injury report Ex.P/3 of injured petitioner, which goes to show that complainant had got injured. Thus the judgment of the Courts below are liable to be set aside and the accused respondents should be convicted for the offence charged against them. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that there is no reason to disbelieve the finding of the courts below which have rightly acquitted the respondents. He prayed that the impugned judgments and order passed by the Courts below may be sustained and the revision petition may be dismissed. 8. I have heard the counsels for the parties and gone through the entire record. 9. From the evidence on record so also finding arrived by the learned court below, it appears that the learned trial court has acquitted the accused respondents on the basis of material contradictions in the statement of the witnesses so also absence of any eye witness or recovery. The learned Trial court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused respondents beyond reasonable doubt. In the opinion of this Court, the findings given by the Courts below are perfectly justified and there is no illegality in the judgment of acquittal. 10. The learned Trial court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused respondents beyond reasonable doubt. In the opinion of this Court, the findings given by the Courts below are perfectly justified and there is no illegality in the judgment of acquittal. 10. 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. 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.” Recently, Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘H.D. Sundara & Ors Vs. State of Karnataka’ (Criminal Appeal No. 247/2011) decided 26.09.2023 held as under :- “7. In this appeal, we are called upon to consider the legality and validity of the impugned judgment rendered by the High Court while deciding an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’). State of Karnataka’ (Criminal Appeal No. 247/2011) decided 26.09.2023 held as under :- “7. In this appeal, we are called upon to consider the legality and validity of the impugned judgment rendered by the High Court while deciding an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’). The principles which govern the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. can be summarised as follows: - (a) The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence; (b) The Appellate Court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to re-appreciate the oral and documentary evidence; (c) The Appellate Court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after re-appreciating the evidence, is required to consider whether the view taken by the Trial Court is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record; (d) If the view taken is a possible view, the Appellate Court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible; and (e) The Appellate Court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible. 8. Normally, when an Appellate Court exercises appellate jurisdiction, the duty of the Appellate Court is to find out whether the verdict which is under challenge is correct or incorrect in law and on facts. The Appellate Court normally ascertains whether the decision under challenge is legal or illegal. But while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the Appellate Court cannot examine the impugned judgment only to find out whether the view taken was correct or incorrect. After re-appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, the Appellate Court must first decide whether the Trial Court's view was a possible view. The Appellate Court cannot overturn acquittal only on the ground that after re-appreciating evidence, it is of the view that the guilt of the accused was established beyond a reasonable doubt. Only by recording such a conclusion an order of acquittal cannot be reversed unless the Appellate Court also concludes that it was the only possible conclusion. The Appellate Court cannot overturn acquittal only on the ground that after re-appreciating evidence, it is of the view that the guilt of the accused was established beyond a reasonable doubt. Only by recording such a conclusion an order of acquittal cannot be reversed unless the Appellate Court also concludes that it was the only possible conclusion. Thus, the Appellate Court must see whether the view taken by the Trial Court while acquitting an accused can be reasonably taken on the basis of the evidence on record. If the view taken by the Trial Court is a possible view, the Appellate Court cannot interfere with the order of acquittal on the ground that another view could have been taken.” 11. 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 judgments under challenge. 12. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the criminal revision petition has no substance and the same is hereby dismissed. 13. The record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.