JUDGMENT - J.M. GANDHI, J.:---This is an appeal filed by the appellant original accused against the judgment and order of conviction by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bombay in Sessions Case No. 501 of 1971 dated 11th April, 1974 convicting the accused under sections 3(1), 4(1), 5(1)(d) and 6(1) of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act (hereinafter referred to for brevity sake as "the said Act") read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him on each count for a substantive sentence to two years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 500/- fine in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment of six months. 2. As it has been pointed out to me by Mr. Hattangadi for the appellant that the learned Judge has disbelieved all the prosecution witnesses on material points required for the purpose of convicting the accused, not only that but has acquitted the accused for a charge framed under section 366-A of the Indian Penal Code disbelieving the prosecution evidence, by strange reasoning suddenly after observing that the prosecutrix is not reliable and has not given the truthful version on material points and after discussing the law that in a case relating to sex ordinarily the evidence of prosecutrix is required corroboration, however, he suddenly in para 130 of his judgment observed that he relied upon the evidence of the girl. This paragraph No. 130, in the submission of Mr. Hattangadi is a strange reasoning, if one were to read paragraphs 1 to 129 of the judgment. He submitted that though the learned Judge has rightly stated some of the principles of Criminal Jurisprudence which are to be followed, instead of applying those principles, has fallen into an error to have accepted the evidence of the prosecutrix and convicted the accused under minor charges, viz., sections 3(1), 4(1), 5(1)(d) and section 6(1) of the said Act read with section 34 I.P.C., even though he has acquitted the accused under section 366-A of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Mr. Hattangadi carefully took me through some of the most relevant paras of the judgment of the learned Judge and pointed out to me how the learned Judge has disbelieved the main prosecution witnesses on all material points. 3. Mr. Hattangadi carefully took me through some of the most relevant paras of the judgment of the learned Judge and pointed out to me how the learned Judge has disbelieved the main prosecution witnesses on all material points. In view of this part of the judgment and in view of the fat that the entire approach of the learned Judge appearing to be that there is some evidence against the accused, having obtained some document from the girl-the prosecutrix purporting to be a promissory note for Rs. 7,000/- and to bring pressure on the relation of the accused to return the girl to the accused and Gangubai, threats were given to the maternal uncle Anni Pujari to pay Rs. 7,000/- or return the Girl and Anni Pujari (P.W. 4) having been threatened, had complained about the same to (P.W. 5), Abbas, relying upon this piece of evidence, the learned Judge through having held that on material points, the prosecution evidence is not acceptable, has convicted the accused under the sections of the said Act as stated above. 4. Mr. Deo, the Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State has also stated before me that the most important piece of evidence worth considering, against the accused is the purported promissory note, having been obtained from the girl is a matter of pressure tactics and further demands made from the maternal uncle of the girl and the evidence of Anni (P.W. 4), and Abbas (P.W. 5), is the most important link in the prosecution case which can establish some elements in the prosecution case for conviction. In view of these arguments advanced by Mr. Deo and Mr. Hattangadi, I do not see any necessity of narrating in detail the entire prosecution case nor referring to the detailed evidence, which has been disbelieved on material points by the learned Judge. But, in order to appreciate whether the learned Judge was right in arriving at the conclusion that the accused is guilty of at least minor offences for which he was convicted. But, in order to appreciate whether the learned Judge was right in arriving at the conclusion that the accused is guilty of at least minor offences for which he was convicted. I was taken through, the evidence of (P.W. 1), i.e. the complainant Sunanda, Anni Pujari (P.W. 4), the maternal uncle of the complainant, Abbas (P.W. 5), both a friend of the accused as well as some way connected to Anni Pujari and who is helping the girl, Anni to procure the assistance of the Advocate to file a complaint and R.R. Gautam (P.W. 7) the Assistant Commissioner of Police on this important aspect of the prosecution case. 5. In disposing of this appeal, I think, the correct approach is to consider these pieces of evidence and to find out whether the prosecution has established any truthfulness about the story of purported promissory note or purported demand or purported threatre given by the accused to Anni Pujari or Sunanda or whether there is any truth about the accused having any hand in the use made of Sunanda by Gangubai, I propose to deal with that part of the evidence in a little detail, because I have to find out whether this evidence on which the prosecution has relied has any connection whatsoever or has been established to the satisfaction or the Court prove the offence against the accused. Before I deal with this evidence in a little detail it is pertinent to observe in this case that the original complaint was filed by the girl Sunanda on 4-12-1969 as a private complaint through an Advocate against this accused and Gungubai under sections 3(1), 4(1) and 5(1) of the said Act and under sections 384 385 of the Indian Penal Code. Such complaint was filed before the Presidency Magistrate, who referred the matter to the Police, Vigilance Branch for their report and action. It appears that on the reference by the learned Magistrate, the Vigilance Branch after making such enquiry or investigation in July 1970 filed a charge-sheet in the Court of the learned Magistrate against this accused as well as Gangubai. On 10th March, 1971, the learned Magistrate 16th Court, Girgaum, after considering the papers submitted before him, including the original complaint filed by the complainant Sunanba, discharged the present appellant and committed Gangubai to stand her trial in the Sessions Court. On 10th March, 1971, the learned Magistrate 16th Court, Girgaum, after considering the papers submitted before him, including the original complaint filed by the complainant Sunanba, discharged the present appellant and committed Gangubai to stand her trial in the Sessions Court. It appears that thereafter Sessions Case No. 167 of 1971 against Gangubai under sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 along with the other sections of the Indian Penal Code, resulted into conviction of Gangubai. This happened sometime in the year 1971. Gangubai was sentenced to two years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 700/- on each count. Being aggrieved by this judgment, Gangubai preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1134 of 1971 in the High Court. On 13th September, 1971, the appeal was summarily dismissed by the High Court. It appears that, at the same time, the Single Judge of the High Court suo motu issued a rule against the present appellant accused Sadullah. Rule was issued on 13-9-1971, i.e. on the day when the appeal was summarily dismissed and made returnable after 4 days i.e. on 17-9-1971. It appears that within 4 days the present appellant had appeared before the learned Single Judge of the High Court and the learned Judge of the High Court, who had issued the rule made it absolute, set aside the order of discharge passed by the learned Magistrate on 10-3-1971 and directed the learned Magistrate to commit the accused to stand his trial under section 366-A of I.P.C. along with other sections of the said Act. Thus, it appears that the accused was committed to Sessions and in Sessions Case No. 501 of 1971 on 11th April, 1974 the appellant accused was convicted by him under the sections I have already referred to, and sentenced him to various terms of rigorous imprisonment and fine. I have mentioned this background only for the purpose of understanding and appreciating the arguments advanced at the bar as to the error committed by the learned Judge in convicting the accused-appellant for the charges for which he has convicted. 6. As observed before, the main argument of Mr. I have mentioned this background only for the purpose of understanding and appreciating the arguments advanced at the bar as to the error committed by the learned Judge in convicting the accused-appellant for the charges for which he has convicted. 6. As observed before, the main argument of Mr. Hattangadi for the appellant is that the entire reasoning of the learned Judge upto a particular stage appears to be correct but suddenly at the time when coming to the final conclusion, he accepts the evidence of the complainant and convicts the accused not minor charges under the said Act, though acquiring the accused for the main charge under section 366-A I.P.C. 7. As pointed out above, both Mr. Hatangadi and Mr. Deo have submitted that in this appeal what is to considered by me is whether the evidence with regard to the purported loan of Rs. 7,000/- or demand thereof or threat in respect of non-payment brings home conviction to the accused or not. Mr. Hattangadi took me through the relevant portions of the evidence of the complainant with regard to this transaction of Rs. 7,000/- which is the peg on which the whole prosecution case hangs. Mr. Hattangadi drew my attention to the complaint which is at p. 59 and the relevant portion with regard to the incident appearing on p. 61 paras 4 and 5. He pointed out that in the very first version of the complainant, which version is recorded in a written complaint drafted by the lawyer and presented on 4th December, 1969, before the learned Magistrate, in para 4 it is stated : "On 1st December, 1969 both the accused had gone out in the evening and there was no customer in the premises. I therefore got an opportunity and escaped from the clutches of the accused and straightaway went to the residence of my maternal uncle." "The accused came to the residence of my maternal uncle in the evening as he had learnt about his address from me during the course of my stay in his premises. The accused asked me to come back. I refused and my uncle told the accused to go away. At that time the accused No. 1 said that the writing on some stamps which I had signed earlier was a promissory note for Rs. The accused asked me to come back. I refused and my uncle told the accused to go away. At that time the accused No. 1 said that the writing on some stamps which I had signed earlier was a promissory note for Rs. 7,000/ and unless and until the said amount is paid by the or my uncle to him, he would get my face tarnished and spoiled with acid. It is only then that I realised that accused had obtained a promissory note for Rs. 7,000/- from me under false representation. I say that by deceitful means the accused extorted a valuable security from me and have thus committed the offence of extortion and abetment and I charge the accused for the said offences." He drew my attention to page 25 of the evidence of this girl in examination-in-chief para 30 where this aspect is referred to. Her version in her evidence in the Sessions Court is as under: "13. On the next day in the morning the accused and Gangubai came to the house of my maternal uncle. They asked me to go back to their house with them. At that time my maternal uncle was present in the house. I refused to go with the accused and Gangubai. They told me that if I did not want to go with them I should pay their money. They were demanding Rs. 7,000/-. I had not taken any amount of Rs. 7,000/- from the accused and Gangubai. My maternal uncle asked the accused as to when I had taken the amount of Rs. 7,000/-. The accused showed to my maternal uncle a document where something was written on it, and my signature was taken. The accused and Gangubai told my maternal uncle that the amount of Rs. 7,000/- was taken by me when I signed the document. The accused and Gangubai had further discussion with my maternal uncle. My maternal uncle told them that they had ruined my life and over and above they were demanding money. They told my maternal uncle that if I did not go with them they would throw acid on my face and disfigure my face. Thereafter they had a hot discussion with my maternal uncle about my going with them. My maternal uncle refused to send me along with them. They told my maternal uncle that if I did not go with them they would throw acid on my face and disfigure my face. Thereafter they had a hot discussion with my maternal uncle about my going with them. My maternal uncle refused to send me along with them. Thereafter the accused and Gangubai thereatened my maternal uncle and left." The relevant cross-examination on this point is on p. 54 para 90. It must be observed here that from the first information of the complaint and the examination-in-chief, it appears very clearly the story of Sunanda is that on 1st December, 1969. She left the place of the accused and Gangubai and went to the maternal uncles place. Either on the same day or the next day the accused and Gangubai had visited the maternal uncle and all the purported talk which she has deposed to took place between the accused and Gangubai and she herself on the one hand and her maternal uncle (P.W. 4), and the accused and Gangubai on the other. Now, if one refers to p. 54, para 90, in the cross-examination, it has been brought out as under :--- "I have stated in my statement recorded by the Police that every time the accused came to the place of my maternal uncle he was accompanied by Gangubai. I had stated so but I cannot say why it is not incorporated in my statement before the Police. I have stated before the Police that the accused was accompanied by Begum when he came to my maternal uncles place on the first occasion. I have stated so before the Police but the Police may not have recorded it. I had told the Police that the accused had visited my maternal uncles place on 3 or 4 occasions and not on one occasion. I cannot say why it is incorporated in the Police statement that the accused had come to my maternal uncles place only once." Now it is true that the Counsel appearing for the accused had not chosen to cross-examination this girl on the details about Rs. 7,000/- of the promissory note, or the demand of Rs. 7,000/- or the threats. I cannot say why it is incorporated in the Police statement that the accused had come to my maternal uncles place only once." Now it is true that the Counsel appearing for the accused had not chosen to cross-examination this girl on the details about Rs. 7,000/- of the promissory note, or the demand of Rs. 7,000/- or the threats. The art of cross-examination is left to individual Counsel and it cannot be laid down which is the best way of cross-examination of a witness and proving the witness not to be telling the truth but to be telling lies. It is equally possible to urge that the Counsel appearing for the accused had deliberately kept silent because in the first complaint as well as in some other record there might be something which may have been stated, which could be stated against the accused. But, the most important thing to be stated here is that the version given by the complainant in her examination-in-chief is not only inconsistent but there is some diversion with the version given by the uncle Anni to which I am presently adverting to, is entirely contradictory with the version given by the complainant (P.W. 1) Sunanda. Therefore, I do not give any importance to non-cross-examination by the defence on this point as having been shown that on all maternal points the witness was apt to tell lies and she had been contradicted on many points and it was shown that she had no compunction for not telling the truth because when it was pointed out to her statement before the Session Court, of her statement before the Police, she did not hesitate to state that she did not know whether she remembered to have made the statement before the Court nor did she state before the Police. In this view of the matter, though there is no cross-examination of Sunanda on this point of Rs. 7,000/- I cannot come to the conclusion that whether she has stated in examination-in-chief should be taken as gospel truth and should be relied upon by the Court to condemn the accused, when the most important witnesses, (P.W. 4) Anni and (P.W. 5), Abbas are called before the Court and examined. Now, therefore, I will go to witness (P.W. 4), Anni, the maternal uncle of girl Sunanda. 8. Now, therefore, I will go to witness (P.W. 4), Anni, the maternal uncle of girl Sunanda. 8. His examination on this point is on p. 73, paras 8, 9 and 10. He says in his examination as under--- "8. On the next day the accused and Gangubai came to my house. Sunanda was in my house at that time. They asked me whether Sunanda had come to my place. I told them that she had come. They said that time I should send Sunanda with them. I refused to send Sunanda with them. They threatened me that either I have to send Sunanda with them or I have to pay them Rs. 7,000/-. I enquired with them about the amount of Rs. 7,000/-. I told them that I would ask Sunanda, about the amount of Rs. 7,000/-. They said to me that they would show me a written proof for Rs. 7,000/-. The told me that they had paid Rs. 7,000/- to Sunanda. 9. I reside on the ground floor. When I was talking with the accused and Gangubai we were standing outside our residence. I went inside and asked Sunanda about the amount of Rs. 7,000/- I also told her that the accused and Gangubai were saying that they had a written proof to show that Rs. 7,000/- were given to her. Sunanda denied to have received the amount of Rs. 7,000/-. I told the accused and Gangubai that Sunanda would not come with them and that nothing would be paid to them. The accused and Gangubai left after giving me abuses. 10. Thereafter again the accused and Gangubai had come to my place or two or three occasions. On these occasions also they demanded money and threatened me. Thereafter I took Sunanda to her native place at Sirtadi, because I was afraid of the accused and Gangubai. I kept Sunanda at the house of her father and came back." This is the version of Anni Pujari, (P.W. 4). I do not think that the prosecution can ask the Court to go beyond the version of their own witness which has deposed to on oath. I kept Sunanda at the house of her father and came back." This is the version of Anni Pujari, (P.W. 4). I do not think that the prosecution can ask the Court to go beyond the version of their own witness which has deposed to on oath. If one were to read the version given by the maternal uncle and accept every word to be true without testing it with the touch stone of the cross-examination, the version, clearly indicates two things, namely, (1) whatever the talks that Gangubai and the accused had with Anni were with uncle Anni and not in the presence of Sunanda; and (2) after the accused and Gangubai having demanded Rs. 7,000/- from he uncle, it is the version of this uncle that he went inside and enquired with Sunanda and Sunanda having refused to have received the amount of Rs. 7,000/-, he came out and told them that he was not paying the amount. This is the version of this main witness for the prosecution about the incident of the loan of Rs. 7,000/- or the alleged demand of Rs. 7,000/- and the threat given to Anni. I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the evidence of Sunanda is therefore, completely contradicted by the evidence of Anni and it appears that Sunanda is having the tendency to exaggegrate the story and give a different version at different time to the extent of saying that Gangubai and the accused threatened her to tarnish her face with acid. This incident is not only not reported by Anni, the uncle of the girl Sunanda, but that Sunanda also has not reported this version to the Police on that occasion. But before I conclude, I should also look into the cross-examination of this witness, which is on p. 82, paras 43, 44 and 45 and they read as under : "43. Prior to 1st December, 1969 I was knowing that Lala and Gangabai were demanding Rs. 7,000/-. In November 1969 I, had lodged two complaints one at V.P. Road Police Station and the other at Lamington Road Police Station. The first complaint was given by me at Lamington Road Police Station. He complaint at Lamington Road Police Station was lodged four days after Sunanda came to my residence. On that very day I lodged another complaint at V.P. Road Police Station. The first complaint was given by me at Lamington Road Police Station. He complaint at Lamington Road Police Station was lodged four days after Sunanda came to my residence. On that very day I lodged another complaint at V.P. Road Police Station. These complaints were against the accused and Gangubai. I had narrated in the complaint everything that had transpired with regard to Sunanda and also the demand of Rs. 7,000/- made by the accused and Gangubai and that the accused had shown me a knife. At Lamington Road Police Station as well as V.P. Road Police Station, my signatures were not obtained below my complaints. Those complaints were written on pieces of papers. 44. I am not able to say why it is not incorporated in my statement recorded by the Police that the accused and Gangubai visited my place on two or four occasions in November 1969, I had stated in my statement before the Police that the accused showed me a knife when I first visited Room No. 11 after Sunanda turned away her face. I cannot say why the Police have not incorporated in my statement that the accused showed a knife to me when I went to Room No. 11 for the first time after Sunanda turned her face. 45. I did not state in my statement before the Police that after Sunanda came to my place I had sent her to her native place for about 20 days." 9. The next reference to this amount of Rs. 7,000/- is on p. 85 para 51 which reads, as under :--- "51. It would not be correct to say that I made enquiry with Sunanda as to whether she had taken an amount of Rs. 7,000/- from the accused, after the accused and Gangubai came. I did not state before the Police that after the accused and Gangubai left my place I asked Sunanda whether she had taken a loan of Rs. 7,000/- from any one of them. The attention of the witness is drawn to his above statement recorded by the Police. He says that he did not make the above statement. It is marked as "G". I am conscious of the fact the use of the Police Statement can only be made to a limited extent. 7,000/- from any one of them. The attention of the witness is drawn to his above statement recorded by the Police. He says that he did not make the above statement. It is marked as "G". I am conscious of the fact the use of the Police Statement can only be made to a limited extent. It can never corroborate the witness nor can it be used as substantive piece of evidence but it can only be used for contradicting the prosecution witness. This being the position in law, I do not wish to draw any inference even if any such statement has been made to the police, where some reference has been made to Rs. 7,000/- to come to the conclusion that was that the case of Anni from the very beginning. But, on the contrary, following the principles to be followed in respect of the contradictions from the statement before the Police, it clearly shows that the version given by Anni is contradicted by what he had stated before the Police. Thus, Ex. G that is the contradiction from the Police statement is found at p. 112 on the record. 10. This is all the reference in connection with the transaction of Rs. 7,000/- of (P.W. 4). As observed before, the version given by this witness is totally different from the version given by Sunanda. In my opinion, if any reliance can be placed on the version given by this witness, it would clearly show that there was no occasion for Sunanda to come face to face the accused and Gangubai at the place of the maternal uncle where she could have been asked for Rs. 7,000/- or threatened to be disfigured by throwing acid on her face. It is equally clearly that from the version given by Anni (P.W. 4), the main person, who trots out the story of Rs. 7,000/- on the pretext of having obtained some documents is Anni (P.W. 4). It is not as if that Anni has been examined to be tested namely, whether any such talk of demand of Rs. 7,000/- or of an alleged promissory note having been signed by Sunanda or of alleged threats given to Anni or Sunanda has any truth. 7,000/- on the pretext of having obtained some documents is Anni (P.W. 4). It is not as if that Anni has been examined to be tested namely, whether any such talk of demand of Rs. 7,000/- or of an alleged promissory note having been signed by Sunanda or of alleged threats given to Anni or Sunanda has any truth. As already stated above, the witness has been contradicted about his version besides being contradicted by the version of Sunanda and in the cross-examination, it is shown that the witness has no faith in telling the truth. He has no compunction to give false evidence in the Court when statement are pointed out to him that he had never stated so. 11. There is one more witness, who has to say something about Rs. 7,000/-. He is (P.W. 5) Abbas, whose evidence begins on p. 87. In paras 7, 8 and 9 on p. 88 there is reference to the transaction of Rs. 7,000/-. "7. I know witness Anni Pujari. I know Annis sisters daughter by name Sunanda. They are both from my native place. I had a talk with Sunanda. On 2nd December, 1969 Anni Pujari had come to my shop, at about 6.30 p.m. He told me that Sadullah Majid had come to his house and had threatened him. Anni told me that Sadullah said to him that a sum of Rs. 7,000/- was outstanding against Sunanda and he was asked to pay that amount. I asked Anni where Sunanda was staying. Anni told me that she was residing with Gangubai in Dayanand Building, and that Lala that is accused had given her money. Anni told me that on 1st December, 1969 Sunanda ran away to him from the place of Gangubai. Anni had come to me to take my advice. I told him that I know Sadullah the accused and that I would talk to him. I told Anni that I would talk to Lala that is the accused and that he should come on the next day. Thereafter Anni left. 8. On the same day I sent my hotel boy and called Sadullah the accused at my house. Thereafter Sadullah came to me in the evening on 2nd December, 1969. I asked the accused as to why he demanded Rs. 7,000/- from Anni Pujari Sadullah said to me that he had given an amount of Rs. Thereafter Anni left. 8. On the same day I sent my hotel boy and called Sadullah the accused at my house. Thereafter Sadullah came to me in the evening on 2nd December, 1969. I asked the accused as to why he demanded Rs. 7,000/- from Anni Pujari Sadullah said to me that he had given an amount of Rs. 7,000/- to Sunanda and he wanted to recover that amount. The accused said to me that I should not interfere in the matter and that he would recover the amount of Rs. 7,000/- from Anni. After the above talk, the accused left. 9. On 3rd December, 1969 at 11.00 Anni came and saw me, at my radio repairing shop. I told Anni that Sadullah was not listening to me and that he wanted the amount of Rs. 7,000/-. Anni told me that the accused was visiting him often that he was afraid of the accused and that he did not know what should be done. Anni asked me whether I knew any lawyer. I told him that I know one Advocate Mr. Merchant. I asked Anni to come to me in the evening on 3rd December, 1969. 10. On 3rd December, 1969 at about 6.30 or 7.00 p.m. Anni came with Sunanda to me at my radio repairing shop. On the same evening I took Anni and Sunanda to the Office of Advocate Mr. Merchant. We did not find the Advocate there. From the clerk we took a card and we went to the house of Advocate Mr. Merchant, at Mahim. There we met Mr. Merchant. His house is situated near Mahim Dargah. His office is situated to the backside of the Zakaria Masjid. 11. I do not know why Sunanda was residing at Gangubais place. I took Anni Pujari to Mr. Merchant Advocate as the accused was coming to his place and harassing him and demanding from him the amount of Rs. 7,000/-. Neither Sunanda no Anni told me that what Sunanda was doing at Gangubais house." 12. It is pertinent to note that on this statement by this witness in examination-in-chief, the prosecution wanted Annis statement corroborated with regard to the demand of Rs. 7,000/- an the threats given to him. The prosecution did not want to stop short at only establishing this witnesss story of Rs. 7,000/-. It is pertinent to note that on this statement by this witness in examination-in-chief, the prosecution wanted Annis statement corroborated with regard to the demand of Rs. 7,000/- an the threats given to him. The prosecution did not want to stop short at only establishing this witnesss story of Rs. 7,000/-. The prosecution wanted this witness to support it even on the main charge of the girl Sunanda being put for the use of prostitution and without treating the witness as hostile under the provisions of section 162 of the new Criminal Procedure Code, the learned Public Prosecutor obtained the permission of the Court to bring on record certain statements made by the witness to the Police during the course of investigation under section 161. On such permission having been granted the prosecution brought the statement made by this witness to the Police, which appeared in paras 15 and 16 on p. 90." It runs as follows : "I did not tell the Police as under : "Afterwards I saw Sunanda at Gangubais room in Dayanand Building. She told me that she was made to do prostitution by Gangubai and Sadullah and they were not allowing her to leave the place and further do not give her money which she was earning from prostitution. I told her that I would tell about it to her Mama Anni Pujari." I do not remember whether I stated in my statement recorded by the Police on 12th December, 1969 as under :--- "On 3-12-1969 the said Anni Pujari came to my shop at Proctor Road and told me that Sunanda had come to his place and told him that she was made to go for prostitution by Gangubai and one Sadullah at Dayananda building and was not allowed to leave that premises and used to usurp her earnings from prostitution." 13. It is obvious that the intention of the Public Prosecutor in bringing on records these two statements by obtaining the permission under section 162 is to justify their stand that this witness at initial stage when his statement was recorded by the Police had supported the prosecution on the main charge of Sunanda being used for prostitution. It is obvious that the intention of the Public Prosecutor in bringing on records these two statements by obtaining the permission under section 162 is to justify their stand that this witness at initial stage when his statement was recorded by the Police had supported the prosecution on the main charge of Sunanda being used for prostitution. Again it is very clear as far as I know the position in law that even though it is now made available to the prosecution to bring on record the statement made by their own witnesses before the Police to contradict the witness or to show that at the earlier stage his version was different than what his version was in the Court, this statement can never be used as substantive piece of evidence nor can it be relied upon by the prosecution as having been proved as evidence on oath on which the prosecution can get any support whatsoever. The statement to the Police can never become the substantive piece of evidence and they can only be used for the purpose of contradicting the witness and nothing more. To a certain extent, the attempt on the part of the learned Public Prosecutor to bring such statements on record from the Police statement, clearly show that the witness on whom the prosecution wanted to rely is not ready to support the prosecution on the main story on which the prosecution wanted to get the accused convicted. Therefore, in my opinion, from this statement having been brought on record it cannot be said that Abbas has supported the prosecution in any manner whatsoever or corroborated the evidence of Sunanda on the main charges under section 366-A I.P.C. or under sections 3(1), 4(1) and 5(d) of the said Act. 14. Now, this witness has been cross-examined very briefly. Again it is a matter of discretion on the part of the Counsel Appearing for the accused as to how to handle the witness in cross-examination. In the cross-examination of this witness some how or the other, no question had been asked about the transaction of Rs. 7,000/- or the alleged complaint by Anni to this witness by the accused and Gangubai. To this extent that there is no cross-examination on this point, the prosecution can legitimately urge that to Counsel on behalf of the accused has not touched the subject in the cross-examination. 7,000/- or the alleged complaint by Anni to this witness by the accused and Gangubai. To this extent that there is no cross-examination on this point, the prosecution can legitimately urge that to Counsel on behalf of the accused has not touched the subject in the cross-examination. Feeling that the probing would go against the accused and it can be further urged to the extent that this witness supports the version, namely, the demand of Rs. 7,000/- or threats given to Anni Pujari, there is some corroboration from this witness. I see some force in this submission which would be urged on behalf of the State, with regard to the appreciation of evidence of this witness. But it is pertinent to note that the entire version given by this witness appears to have bene only corroborating the version which has been trotted out by Anni Pujari and if on the main evidence of Anni Pujari no reliance can be placed, I do not think that any amount of corroboration of this type could help the prosecution to support Anni Pujari. If it is not reliable then even though a number of persons repeated the story of the prosecution, it creates a reasonable doubt as to whether such state of affairs took place or not. Here it is important to note that the evidence of Anni read with the evidence of Abbas creates doubt about the prosecution story in the Court of Sessions that the accused and Gangubai had approached. Anni on 2nd December, 1969 and the alleged talk of about Rs. 7,000/- or the alleged threat for non-payment had taken place. Cross-examination on behalf of the accused brought on p. 92 para 26 evidence to this extent; "I have stated in my statement before the Police about the visit of Anni Pujari to me on 2nd December, 1969". In my opinion, such a statement can only be used for the purpose of providing contradiction or omission with the statement to the police and it appears that it has been put to him in order to prove the omission that this witness had never stated about the visit of 2nd December, 1969 by Anni to him. In my opinion, such a statement can only be used for the purpose of providing contradiction or omission with the statement to the police and it appears that it has been put to him in order to prove the omission that this witness had never stated about the visit of 2nd December, 1969 by Anni to him. After having put this to the witness Abbas (P.W. 5), it appears that it slipped out of the mind of the Counsel for the accused to have produced on record through Gautam that thus witness has not referred to any visit by Anni on 2nd December, 1969. But, as the Counsel for the accused not brought that omission on record, I do not wish to go into the question at all and do not rely upon that part whatsoever for the purpose of not accepting the evidence of Abbas. On the contrary, the intrinsic strength of the evidence of Abbas depends upon the intrinsic evidence of Anni. If the main story on which the prosecution relies in connection with these 6-7 incidents is that of Anni which, as I have pointed out above, has been contradicted by Sunanda, is not reliable then the evidence of Abbas cannot carry the prosecution any further and it cannot give any support to the prosecution evidence led by Anni. There is one thing important which I have to point out about this witness. This witness has been condemned by the prosecution itself by asking permission to bring on record certain statements made before the police, to which he was not sticking to while giving evidence before the Court. 15. One thing more has been pointed out by Mr. Hattangadi from the evidence of Sunanda and it is regarding the question about the conversation between Anni and others and Abbas and others having known to Sunanda and known to Anni and that such conversion has become doubtful by certain admissions shown from the evidence of Sunanda in Case No. 160 of 1971 against Gangubai. When this very Abbas (P.W. 5), was a witness for the prosecution and when he was shown Sunanda, she had stated before the Court in that case that it was not this Abbas but it was some other Abbas to whom she referred to. When this very Abbas (P.W. 5), was a witness for the prosecution and when he was shown Sunanda, she had stated before the Court in that case that it was not this Abbas but it was some other Abbas to whom she referred to. It is true that it is in the form of contradiction that has been brought on record and that contradiction has not been admitted by the witness Sunanda, it being a matter of record, I cannot ignore it and if from the evidence on record a doubt is created and which doubt is a reasonable doubt, whether this Abbas who had visited Sunanda and known Sunanda and helped he in Gangubai house and in the manner in which she alleges, he is not telling the truth but there is some other Abbas involved in it, I think, the prosecution case, instead of gaining any strength from such corroboration loses whatever little value that can be attached to the evidence of Anni. All other contradictions and omissions referred to in the evidence of Sunanda, the complainant, Anni (P.W. 4), and Abbas (P.W. 5) have been proved by the accuseds Counsel when R.R. Gautam was examined on behalf of the prosecution. 16. Now, in this light to the evidence of these three witnesses, it is for the Court to see whether this aspect of Rs. 7,000/- story creates confidence in the mind of the Court that it is this accused who was responsible for the offence for which he was convicted. Mr. Deo has urged before me that even though there is a contradiction in the version of Anni and Sunanda, it would be the correct approach, that the main person referring to the transaction of Rs. 7,000/- is Anni Pujari and not Sunanda, but the main story told by Anni Pujari, being corroborated by Sunanda and Abbas, the Court should draw an inference that Anni has shown the connection of the accused with Gangubai on the one hand and also knowledge about Sunanda and demand for moneys from Anni Pujari. If such a link can be established, according to Mr. Deo, then according to him, it goes a long way to support the prosecution case that the present accused was the accused along with Gangubai who was responsible for taking Sunanda to Room No. 11 and using her for prostitution. If such a link can be established, according to Mr. Deo, then according to him, it goes a long way to support the prosecution case that the present accused was the accused along with Gangubai who was responsible for taking Sunanda to Room No. 11 and using her for prostitution. I have given careful consideration to the submission of Mr. Deo but I am unable to accept the reasoning given but him. On the contrary, I see considerable force in the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant that the peg on which the entire prosecution evidence is supported, namely, the story of Rs. 7,000/- and the demand of the same and the threats, both to Anni and to Sunanda fell to ground, then nothing remains against the accused. 17. As I have analysed the entire evidence on this point and observed that not only Sunanda does not tell the truth but even the evidence of Anni is doubtful about the transaction of Rs. 7,000/- and the allegation of promissory note having been obtained of demand having been made, no doubt in respect of the amount but also in respect of the visits which the witnesses have alleged, have taken place on 2nd and 3rd December, 1969; ordinarily the High Court sitting in appeal is entitled to look for itself and form and opinion, but fortunately for me the learned Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that neither Sunanda nor Anni Punjari nor Abbas are reliable witnesses. But, strangely enough he came to the conclusion at the last stage that the evidence of Sunanda is acceptable to him and convicted the accused under the section mentioned above. I have carefully gone through the judgment and the reasoning given by the learned Judge. I am of the opinion that the learned Judge has erred, after having come to the conclusion that the prosecution story is not reliable on materials points and having come to the conclusion that the prosecution requires corroboration; instead of finding corroboration he has again jumped to the conclusion that the prosecutrix herself has been reliable. This error, in my opinion, has resulted into a grave injustice and a wrong conviction. I have already mentioned the background on which the learned Judge was trying the case. This error, in my opinion, has resulted into a grave injustice and a wrong conviction. I have already mentioned the background on which the learned Judge was trying the case. It appears that the fact that Gangubai was convicted before and that the committal order was made against the accused after the conviction of Gangubai at the instance of the High Court, might have weighed with the learned Judge. But, it must be remembered that as far as the appreciation of the evidence is concerned, it has to be appreciated on the evidence itself and if there is inherent weakness in the prosecution case or if a reasonable doubt arises in the mind of the Court, the benefit can always be given to the accused and not to the prosecution. In this view of the matter, nor only that I hold that the prosecution has not established the necessary ingredients required to be established against the accused but I have come to the conclusion that even on the question of Rs. 7,000/- story there is reasonable doubt arising in my mind and in that view, this small point also cannot be of any assistance in condemning the accused for the offence with which he is charged. 18. Mr. Deo for the State pointed out some other portion of evidence of Sunanda and tried to submit before me that there is some obvious mistake about the point of time when Sunanda is supposed to have left Room No. 11. There is an obvious confusion in the evidence, but as I have analysed, it appears to me that whatever may be truth, in the evidence on record, it appears that on 1st December, 1969 Sunanda left Room No. 11 went to the house of Anni (P.W. 4), and on 2nd December, 1969 and the accused and Gangubai visited the house of Anni and a report was made by Anni to Abbas. If this is the story which the prosecution has brought on record on oath in the Sessions trial, I do not think that the Court is entitled to draw any inference in favour of the prosecution in support of Sunanda and Anni that Sunanda might have left the place earlier and the demand might have taken place earlier and the reference of and 3rd December, 1969 is a reference to the subsequent demand made by the accused and Gangubai on Anni. There is nothing on record to support this submission of Mr. Deo. 19. In the result, the appellant succeeds in the appeal. The order of conviction and sentence is set aside. The accused is acquitted of all the charges under sections 3(1), 4(1), 5(1) and 6 of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, read with section 34 I.P.C. Fine, if paid, should be refunded to him. Bail bond is cancelled. -----