JUDGMENT B.V. PINTO, J.—This appeal is filed by the State challenging the judgment dated 17.9.2003 in S.C. No. 101/1996 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Tumkur, acquitting the respondents-accused for the offence punishable under Sections 366, 366A of IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 29.6.1992 at about 7.30 a.m. at Jinnagara village, Kunigal Taluk, all the accused kidnapped women, namely, P.W. 1-Doddamma @ Shivamma w/o Chandrappa, and P.W. 2-Thimmamma D/o Thimmaiah and took them to Kagral village, Badai District in U.P., with the intention that, the said women may be compelled to indulge in prostitution, thereby they are alleged to have committed an offence punishable under Section 366 of IPC. It is the further allegation that on the aforesaid date, time and place, accused induced C.W. 3-Doddolu @ Vasantha and C.W. 4-Bhagya d/o Bogaiah, who are girls under 18 years of age, to go from Jinnagara village in Kunigal Taluk to Kagral village in Badai District, U.P. State, with the intention that the said girls may be forced to indulge in prostitution and thereby they are alleged to have committed offence under Section 366A of IPC. 3. The prosecution in order to prove the case before the Court has examined in all 11 witnesses and got marked Exs. P1 to P7. However, after hearing the prosecution and defence, learned Sessions Judge was pleased to hold that the prosecution has not proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, he has acquitted the accused for the offences levelled against them. The State has challenged the said order of acquittal. 4. Heard Sri Vijay Kumar Majige, learned Government Pleader for the State and also Sri Nandeesh, learned Counsel appearing for R1 and R2 and Sri B.S. Nagaraj, learned Counsel appearing for R3 and R4. Perused the materials. 5. Learned Government Pleader submits that in this case victims P.Ws. 1, 2 and 5 have deposed that they had been enticed by the accused to go from Kunigal Taluk to Kagral village in Badai District, U.P. and once they reached U.P., the accused have compelled them to turn to the prostitution business. When P.Ws. 3 and 5 reached to the said district in U.P., victims have lodged the complaint on 14.10.1992. When P.Ws. 3 and 5 reached to the said district in U.P., victims have lodged the complaint on 14.10.1992. From the evidence of prosecution witness, it is clear that the accused have made the victims to go from Kunigal to U.P. and, therefore, they have committed offence under Section 366 of IPC. He further submits that P.W. 3-Vasantha and P.W. 5-Bhagyamma were below the 18 years of age at the time of commission of offence. Therefore, the accused are liable to be convicted for the offence under Section 366A of IPC. 6. On the other hand learned Counsel appearing for the accused-respondents submits that P.Ws. 9 and 10 have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence to show that the victims were found in Katrala village of Badai district of U.P., the prosecution has not been successful in bringing home the guilt of the accused. Hence, it is submitted that the learned Sessions Judge is right in acquitting the accused and they submit that the appeal may be dismissed. 7. After having gone through the materials on record, the points that arise for consideration is: (i) Whether the judgment dated 17.9.2003 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Tumkur, acquitting the accused for offences under Sections 366 and 366A of IPC is justified? (ii) What order? 8. My answer to the above points are: Point No. 1 : In the affirmative Point No. 2 : As per the final order for the following: Reasons: 9. The complaint in this case was originally filed on 1.7.1992 by Sri Bhadrappa who is the father of P.W. 3 stating that his daughter by name Doddolu @ Vasantha aged about 18 years is missing from the house since 29.6.1992 at about 7.30 a.m. He has requested the police for tracing his daughter. On the basis of the said complaint, Amruthur police has registered the case in Crime No. 93/92. On the basis of information available to the police they have traced the accused and also the victims in Katrala village in U.P. State and brought them back to Kunigal. On the basis of the complaint given by Doddamma-P.W. 1 police have registered a case on 14.12.1992 for the offences under Sections 366 and 366A of IPC. On the basis of information available to the police they have traced the accused and also the victims in Katrala village in U.P. State and brought them back to Kunigal. On the basis of the complaint given by Doddamma-P.W. 1 police have registered a case on 14.12.1992 for the offences under Sections 366 and 366A of IPC. On completion of investigation, the police have filed charge-sheet for the offences under Section 366 and 366A of IPC against the accused/respondents. 10. During the Trial, P.W. 1-Doddamma has stated that she knows accused Nos. 1 to 4 and also P.W. 2-Thimmamma and P.W. 3-Vasantha. Bhagyamma is her younger sister. They are residents of Jinnagara village, Kunigal Taluk and she was living with her mother. About 10 years ago A2 and A4 informed them that they will provide them job in biscuit factory and they took them to their house in Kunigal and at that time Al Jayarama. and Savithramma were present in the house. Thereafter, all the 4 accused persons took them to Bangalore. In the Bangalore Railway Station, they gave coffee to them. When they took coffee, they felt like losing the consciousness. When they regained the consciousness they found themselves in Agra. Al and A2 were present alongwith them. Thereafter, Al and A2 took them to Katrala village in a bus and they took them to the house of one Savithramma at Katrala. At that time, they were told that A3 and A4 have sold them for Rs. 5,000/- each. It is the evidence of P.W. 1 that Al and A2 asked them to work like prostitutes and when they refused to do so, both the accused compelled them to work as prostitutes. They used to compel them to have sex with three to four persons daily. After two months CWs 3 and 4 Doddallu and Bhagya were also secured in that place. Thereafter, they have stayed with them for about 20 days. When Al and A2 told them that they are going to visit sugar factory at Kunigal, they expressed their desire to accompany them. Thereafter, she told that she knows two more girls and thereafter Al and A2 took them back to Kunigal. After coming to Kunigal she has filed a complaint. In the cross-examination she has stated that she knows the accused persons, since they were staying in Jinagar. Thereafter, she told that she knows two more girls and thereafter Al and A2 took them back to Kunigal. After coming to Kunigal she has filed a complaint. In the cross-examination she has stated that she knows the accused persons, since they were staying in Jinagar. She was married about 15 years ago, but she did not stay with her husband, since, she was not willing to marry her husband. Thereafter she had married one Chandrappa. However, she came to know that the said Chandrappa had got another wife by name Gangamma. She was working at Kunigal alongwith CWs 1 to 4. CW4 is her sister. She has stated that their house is near Kunigal Police Station. It is suggested to her that she is deposing falsely before the Court. 11. P.W. 2-Thimmamma has also stated regarding her taking by accused to Bangalore railway station and thereafter told them to take coffee. Thereafter they had gone in train to U.P., and stayed in house of A1-Jayarama alongwith A2 and A3. It was informed to her that they were sold for the purpose of prostitution. She has also stated regarding their coming back to the village with the help of P.W. 1. The evidence of P.W. 3-Vasanta and another victim P.W. 5-Bhagyamma is also to the same effect. 12. P.W. 4-Bhadrappa is the father of P.W. 3. He has stated that he has given a complaint as per Ex. P2. The complaint came to be filed against the accused. P.W. 6-M.R. Sooiashekarappa is the Thasildar and Taluk Executive Magistrate of Kunigal. He has recorded the statements of P.W. 2-Thimmamma and P.W. 1 Doddamma. P.W. 7-Imthiyaz Ahamed is the Head Constable of Amruthur Police Station who has assisted in investigation of the case. He had accompanied the local police to go to Katrala village. P.W. 8-K.A. Sathyamurthy is the PSI who had also conducted a part of investigation in this case. P.W. 9-Kishan Lal is Pot-maker from Katrala village and P.W. 10 Ramachandra is from Katrala village and both of them have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. 13. P.W. 11-Doddanarasaiah is the PSI who has conducted the part of investigation in this case. From the evidence of these witnesses, learned Sessions Judge has found that the prosecution has not proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 14. 13. P.W. 11-Doddanarasaiah is the PSI who has conducted the part of investigation in this case. From the evidence of these witnesses, learned Sessions Judge has found that the prosecution has not proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 14. It is seen from the material on record that the prosecution has not been able to show that P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 5 have been in fact taken to Uttar Pradesh. Except from the mouth of the said witnesses, there is no corroboration to the version of the said witnesses to say that the accused have taken the victims to Katrala village of U.P. State. No persons from the said place have been examined except P.Ws. 9 and 10. Both P.Ws. 9 and 10 have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. The Police ought to have taken the assistance of local police in U.P. and ought to have collected certain documents to show that the victims were in fact taken to a place where the victims were alleged to have been forced to carry on prostitution. In view of total denial of the allegations by P.Ws. 9 and 10 in this respect, the other evidence adduced by the prosecution will not lead to conclusion that the accused have taken with them the victims to U.P. State. 15. Further though it is the case of the prosecution that the victims were taken from Bangalore in a train, no evidence is produced to show that in fact, the accused and victims have travelled in the train as alleged by the prosecution. The learned Sessions Judge has held that absence of any struggle or raising alarm while being taken away by the accused, create suspicion in the mind of the Court to hold that the victims were in fact forcibly taken by the accused. To attract Section 366A IPC, the prosecution has not secured the birth certificates of P.Ws. 3 and 5 who are alleged to be minors as on the date of offence. Under the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge has held that it can be said that these girls were willingly staying in the locality at Katrala and that the PSI had asked their willingness to go back to Karnataka. At that time, there was no compulsion of any kind from anybody. Under the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge has held that it can be said that these girls were willingly staying in the locality at Katrala and that the PSI had asked their willingness to go back to Karnataka. At that time, there was no compulsion of any kind from anybody. Further, once traced, there was no impediment for the police to produce the victims before the local Magistrate at Katrala which would have created evidence that the victims were found in Katrala, U.P. Having not done so, the say of the prosecution that the victims were found in U.P. has not been established beyond reasonable doubt. 16. On a careful reconsideration of the entire material on record and also grounds of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court, I find that there is no perversity or illegality in the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge and, therefore, this appeal is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.