Conscious possession and acquittal review: inconsistent seizure evidence and weak corroboration barred interference with the trial court's view.

An acquittal was not interfered with where the prosecution failed to prove conscious possession of foreign-marked gold through reliable independent evidence. Material inconsistencies in the raiding officer's and panch witnesses' evidence, including the place of preparation of the seizure panchnama and the stage of their association, undermined the prosecution case. The trial court's view that the panch witnesses had not actually seen the box and its contents, and that the case depended mainly on an interested witness with doubtful corroboration, was held to be a plausible view on the record. In an appeal against acquittal, interference is unwarranted unless the findings are perverse or illegal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal deserved interference on the ground that the prosecution had proved conscious possession of foreign-marked gold and the trial court had erred in appreciating the evidence.

Analysis: The evidence of the raiding officer and the panch witnesses showed material inconsistencies regarding the place where the seizure panchnama was prepared and the stage at which the panch witnesses were associated. The prosecution also failed to establish, with reliable independent evidence, that the respondent was in conscious possession of the contraband. The trial court's view that the panch witnesses had not actually seen the box and its contents, and that the case rested mainly on an interested witness with doubtful corroboration, was a plausible view on the record. In an appeal against acquittal, interference is not warranted unless the findings are shown to be perverse or illegal.

Conclusion: The acquittal was not liable to be disturbed; the appeal failed and the respondent succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: In an appeal against acquittal, a plausible appreciation of evidence by the trial court will not be interfered with unless the findings are shown to be perverse, and conviction for possession of contraband requires reliable proof of conscious possession.

---