Inconsistencies in seizure procedures and contradictory witness testimonies create reasonable doubt, justifying acquittal in animal transportation cases.

The State appealed against a judgment dated 04.02.2016 by the JMFC, Sagar, which acquitted the respondents of charges under Sections 4/9 of the M.P. Govanshi Pratishedh Adhiniyam, Sections 10/11 of the M.P. Krishak Pashu Parirakshan Adhiniyam, Section 11 of the Pashu Krurata Adhiniyam, and Sections 66/192 of the Motor Vehicle Act.

The prosecution alleged that on 03.12.2013, police intercepted a Tata Magic vehicle transporting six calves with cruelty for slaughter without a permit.

The prosecution examined seven witnesses to prove its case.

The State argued that the trial court ignored ample evidence and the testimony of Dr. Jagdish (P.W. 7) regarding the calves' ages.

1. Whether the prosecution established the guilt of the accused persons beyond a reasonable doubt in light of material contradictions in the testimony of police and independent witnesses?

2. Whether the findings of the trial court were perverse or illegal, justifying interference by the appellate court in an appeal against acquittal?

Section 378(1) of the CrPC regarding appeals against acquittal.

If two views are possible, the view favorable to the accused must be adopted (State of Gujarat v. Jayrajbhai Punjabhai Varu (2016)).

Suspicion cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt (Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of W.B. (2023)).

The appellate court must demonstrate an error of law or fact to reverse an acquittal (Mallappa v. State of Karnataka (2024)).

The Court found the prosecution's case fundamentally flawed due to severe temporal and locational discrepancies. Complainant H.R. Gangele (P.W. 4) claimed to have received information at 11:00 AM and stopped the vehicle at 1:30 PM, yet the FIR (Ex. P-5) recorded receipt of information at 1:15 PM at a station 20 km away.

This made the timing logically impossible.

P.W. 4 claimed proceedings were at the spot, while P.W. 5 claimed the seizure occurred at the police station.

Independent witnesses (P.W. 1, 2, and 3) contradicted each other regarding the timing (stating 9–10 AM) and the exact location of the intercept (Tajpur vs. Singaur Chauri vs. Padrai Tiraha).

The Court concluded that these contradictions rendered the entire prosecution story doubtful and lacking in credibility.

As the trial court's view was legally plausible and not perverse, no grounds for interference existed.

The Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of acquittal.