Acquittal is justified where alleged seizure of wildlife articles occurs in an open, accessible area without exclusive possession.

On April 16, 2015, forest officials acted on a tip regarding illegal animal remains at village Peeparkhunta.

A search of respondent Ramlal’s house yielded nothing; however, a bag containing 39 horns (12.8 kg) and two bones was recovered from an empty cement water tank located behind the house in an open courtyard.

The trial court (Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seoni) acquitted the respondent of charges under Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, on December 16, 2021, on the grounds that the recovery was from an open, accessible place and "exclusive possession" was not proved.

The State appealed this acquittal.

1. Whether the prosecution successfully established that the seized animal remains were in the "exclusive possession" of the respondent given the location of the recovery.

2. Whether the appellate court should interfere with a judgment of acquittal when the trial court's view is a "legally plausible view" based on the evidence.

The court applied Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, concerning penalties for contravention of the Act.

H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka (2023) and Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka (2024), which establish that the presumption of innocence is reinforced by an acquittal and that an appellate court should not overturn an acquittal unless the trial court’s findings are perverse, manifestly erroneous, or based on a misreading of material evidence.

Mallappa v. State of Karnataka (2024), emphasizing that if two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused must be followed.

The High Court observed that while official witnesses (PW-4 and PW-5) testified to the recovery, independent witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2) turned hostile and did not support the prosecution's story.

Crucially, the prosecution witnesses admitted during cross-examination that no incriminating articles were found inside the house and that the water tank was situated in an open courtyard without a boundary wall, making it accessible to any outsider.

The court reasoned that since the respondent and his family were asleep during the search and the location was accessible to the public, the prosecution failed to prove "exclusive possession" of the horns beyond a reasonable doubt.

Applying the standard for appeals against acquittal, the court found that the trial court’s decision was a "possible view" and lacked any patent perversity.

The court affirmed the judgment of acquittal, stating that there was no ground for interference as the trial court's findings were not faulty or perverse.

The appeal was dismissed.