JUDGMENT : Instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner/complainant against the judgment dated 12.04.2007, passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Udaipur in Sessions Case No.177/2005, whereby the learned trial court acquitted the accused-respondent No.2 from the offences punishable under Sections 304B, 306 & 498-A IPC. Brief facts of the case are that on 23.04.2005, complainant/petitioner submitted a report at Police Station Kurawad, District Udaipur to the effect that marriage of his daughter Asha solemnized with respondent No.2 Sunil Kumar about 4 years ago. After marriage, the accused-respondent No.2 and his family members started harassing the complainant’s daughter for bringing less dowry and also gave beatings to her and subsequently, the accused-respondent No.2 burnt Asha and she died on 03.03.2005 in Ahmedabad at Rajasthan Hospital. On the said complaint, Police registered a case against the accused respondent No.2 and started investigation. On completion of investigation, the police filed challan against the accused respondent No.2 for offence under Sections 304B, 306 & 498-A IPC. Thereafter, the trial court framed the charges. The accused-respondent No.2 denied the charges and claimed trial. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as fifteen witnesses in support of its case and also exhibited certain documents. Thereafter, statement of the accused- respondent No.2 was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, three witnesses were examined. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 12.04.2007 acquitted the accused- respondent No.2 from the aforesaid offences. Hence, this revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant has submitted that there is ample evidence against the accused-respondent No.2 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 No.2 from the aforesaid offences. The learned trial court has committed grave error in acquitting the accused-respondent No.2. Thus, the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside and the accused-respondent No.2 ought to have been convicted and sentenced for offence under Sections 304B, 306 & 498-A IPC. Per contra, counsel for the accused-respondent No.2 submits that the learned trial court has passed a detailed and reasoned order of acquittal, which requires no interference from this Court. Thus, the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside and the accused-respondent No.2 ought to have been convicted and sentenced for offence under Sections 304B, 306 & 498-A IPC. Per contra, counsel for the accused-respondent No.2 submits that the learned trial court has passed a detailed and reasoned order of acquittal, which requires no interference from this Court. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as considered the material available on record. 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 No.2 beyond all reasonable doubts and thus, the trial court has rightly acquitted the accused-respondent No.2 from offence under Sections 304B, 306 & 498-A IPC. 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. 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. 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.” 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. 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. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the present criminal revision petition has no substance and the same is hereby dismissed. The record of the court below be sent back forthwith.