Order : MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J. 1.Instant criminal revision petition under Section 397 /401 Cr.P.C . has been filed by the petitioner/complainant against the judgment dated 16.06.2006, passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Sojat, District Pali in Sessions Case No.24/2003, whereby the learned trial court acquitted the accused-respondents No.2 to 4 from the offences punishable under Sections 498-A , 306 IPC . 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 14.07.1999, complainant/petitioner submitted a report before the SP, Pali to the effect that marriage of his daughter Usha solemnized with respondent No.2 Govindram about 6 years ago. After some time of marriage, the accused-respondents No.2 to 4 started harassing the complainant’s daughter for bringing less dowry and also gave beatings to her and subsequently, the accused-respondents No.2 to 4 murdered Usha by giving poison her. On the said complaint, Police registered a case against the accused respondents No.2 to 4 and started investigation. 3. On completion of investigation, the police filed challan against the accused respondent Nos.2 to 4 for offence under Sections 498-A , 304-B IPC . Thereafter, the trial court framed the charges. The accused-respondent Nos.2 to 4 denied the charges and claimed trial. Subsequently, in place of charge for offence under Section 304-B IPC , charge for offence under Section 306 IPC was framed in view of the order passed by this in a revision petition filed by the respondents No.2 to 4. 4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as twenty witnesses in support of its case and also exhibited certain documents. Thereafter, statements of the accused- respondent Nos.2 to 4 were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C . In defence, two witnesses were examined. 5. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 16.06.2006 acquitted the accused- respondent Nos.2 to 4 from the aforesaid offences. Hence, this revision petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant has submitted that there is ample evidence against the accused- respondent Nos.2 to 4 regarding commission of offence but the learned trial court did not consider the evidence and other aspects of the matter in its right perspective and acquitted the accused- respondent Nos.2 to 4 from the aforesaid offences. The learned trial court has committed grave error in acquitting the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 4. The learned trial court has committed grave error in acquitting the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 4. Thus, the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside and the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 4 ought to have been convicted and sentenced for offence under Sections 498-A , 306 IPC . 7. Per contra, counsel for the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 4 submits that the learned trial court has passed a detailed and reasoned order of acquittal, which requires no interference from this Court. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted a report dated 08.04.2025 received from the concerned Police Station informing that the petitioner-complainant had passed away on 13.10.2006. A copy of his death certificate is also annexed. The said report is hereby taken on record. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as considered the material available on record. 10. On perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that the learned trial court while passing the impugned judgment has considered each and every aspect of the matter and also considered the evidence produced before it in its right perspective. There are major contradictions, omissions & improvements in the statements of the witnesses. The prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 4 beyond all reasonable doubts and thus, the trial court has rightly acquitted the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 4 from offence under Sections 498-A , 306 IPC . 11. In the case of 'Mrinal Das & others v. The State of Tripura, : reported in 2011(9) SCC 479 ,' , 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. 12. 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. 12. 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.” 13. There is a very thin but a fine distinction between an appeal/ revision 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/revision against acquittal except that while dealing with an appeal/revision 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. 14. In the light of aforesaid discussion, 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. The order passed by the learned trial court is detailed and reasoned order and the same does not warrant any interference from this Court. 15. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present criminal revision petition has no substance and the same is hereby dismissed. 16. The record of the court below be sent back forthwith.