JUDGMENT : Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J. The judgment and order of acquittal dated 21-11-2009 passed by the Fast Track Court No. VI, Bengaluru (CCC-6) in S.C. No. 75 of 2007 is called in question by the State in this appeal. 2. The accused-respondents are tried and acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 342, 366-A and 376 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3, 5 and 6 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that prosecutrix i.e., P.W. 1, living at Kadapa in Andhra Pradesh State, came about 15 days prior to 22-8-2006 to Bengaluru in order to meet her sister Smt. Kamalbee; Kamalbee's husband (C.W. 6) was running a watch shop in the City Market, Bengaluru. Prosecutrix got down from the bus at city bus stand and went to her brother-in-law's watch shop; however, the watch shop was closed. She enquired with the neighbouring tea shop; tea shop owner told the prosecutrix to wait till the opening of the watch shop, she could not get the address of the house of her sister, so she went to the house of her sister's friend Smt. Farzana (accused 1) at Avalahalli and told her that she wants to meet her sister; Farzana (accused 1) took the prosecutrix to the house of Smt. Hasina (accused 3) at Anepalya and asked P.W. 1 to stay in the house of accused 3 till she meets her sister; prosecutrix came to know that accused 1 to 3 were carrying the business of prostitution. Accused 2 and 3 confined P.W. 1 in their house; accused 4 subjected P.W. 1 to forcible sexual intercourse; subsequently, number of other persons had sexual intercourse with the victim against her will for about 10 days. It is further case of the prosecution that after about 15 days, accused 2 gave Rs. 8,000/- to P.W. 1 in the presence of accused 1, which is snatched by accused 1; such factor was intimated by P.W. 1 to accused 3, but pretending that she would get a job for P.W. 1, took her to Mumbai in a bus, they reached Mumbai in the last week of August 2006. 8,000/- to P.W. 1 in the presence of accused 1, which is snatched by accused 1; such factor was intimated by P.W. 1 to accused 3, but pretending that she would get a job for P.W. 1, took her to Mumbai in a bus, they reached Mumbai in the last week of August 2006. Accused 3 and P.W. 1 stayed in Awadh Mahal Hotel in Agripada Area; since P.W. 1 suspected the intention of accused 3, who was seen talking with another boy, she ran away from the said place. She was intercepted by Police. The Police of Agripada area enquired with P.W. 1; P.W. 1 narrated about the whole incident to the Police of Agripada Area of Bombay. The statement of P.W. 1 was recorded as per Ex. P. 1, and same was registered in Crime No. 00/ 2006 against the accused and FIR was submitted; since major portion of the offence had occurred within the jurisdiction of Bengaluru City, case was transferred to jurisdictional Police at Bengaluru; accordingly, Ashok Nagar Police registered the case against the accused in Crime No. 483 of 2006 and submitted the FIR. The Police after investigation laid the charge-sheet. 4. In order to prove its case, prosecution, in all, has examined 14 witnesses and got marked 18 exhibits. On behalf of the defence no witnesses were examined. As aforementioned, the Trial Court by giving benefit of doubt in favour of the accused, acquitted the accused. 5. Sri Vijaya Kumar Majage, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor taking us through the entire material on record submits that Trial Court is not justified in acquitting the accused in view of the detailed evidence of P.W. 1-Prosecutrix. The Trial Court is not justified in concluding that victim was aged more than 16 years at the time of incident; the evidence of the victim coupled with all other attending circumstances prove the case of the prosecution against the accused, the reasons assigned and the conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court are not just and proper. 6. Per contra, Sri N. Sampangi Ramaiah, learned Amicus Curiae, argued in support of the judgment and order passed by the Court below contending that the evidence on record clearly reveals that the victim was aged more than 16 years; the victim has voluntarily surrendered herself for prostitution. 6. Per contra, Sri N. Sampangi Ramaiah, learned Amicus Curiae, argued in support of the judgment and order passed by the Court below contending that the evidence on record clearly reveals that the victim was aged more than 16 years; the victim has voluntarily surrendered herself for prostitution. Though there was ample opportunity for her to go back to her parents place, the victim did not choose to do so. The very fact that the victim boarded the bus alone, shows that the victim was bold and was knowing the address of her sister. Victim admitted that the house of her sister is abutting the house of accused 1; since the victim visited the house of accused 1, there was no reason as to why she should not go to the adjoining sister's house. He further submits that the Trial Court is justified in acquitting the accused inasmuch as the prosecution has not proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. 7. P.W. 1 is the prosecutrix/victim; she has lodged the complaint as per Ex. P. 1 initially before Agripada Police Station, Mumbai on 19-9-2006 which was transferred to Bengaluru on the point of jurisdiction. She has narrated about the entire incident as to how she has suffered both mentally and physically in the hands of the accused 1 to 3; she has in detail deposed about the accused 1 to 3 pushing her to prostitution, taking advantage of her innocence; she is also the witness to the scene of panchnama-Ex. P. 2. P.W. 2 is the Social worker and she is a member of Swathi Mahila Seva Sangha, Mumbai. She has also endorsed the complaint-Ex. P. 1 lodged by the victim girl before Agripada Police Station. The Police having secured the presence of the victim girl took her to Swathi Mahila Seva Sangha, Mumbai and allowed her to stay in the said Swathi Mahila Seva Sangha, Mumbai till 19-9-2006 from 25-8-2006. P.W. 3 is the Assistant Police Inspector attached to Agripada Police Station, Mumbai; after completion of the investigation in part at Mumbai, he sent the investigation records viz., Exs. P. 1, P. 3, P. 4, P. 6 and P. 7 to the jurisdictional Police at Bengaluru on the point of jurisdiction. He also brought the victim girl (P.W. 1) along with him from Mumbai to Bengaluru and gave custody of the girl to Ashok Nagar Police Station. P. 1, P. 3, P. 4, P. 6 and P. 7 to the jurisdictional Police at Bengaluru on the point of jurisdiction. He also brought the victim girl (P.W. 1) along with him from Mumbai to Bengaluru and gave custody of the girl to Ashok Nagar Police Station. P.W. 4 is the Manager of Awadh Mahal Lodge at Mumbai. He has deposed that the victim and another lady by name Haseena (A3) stayed in Room No. 10 of the said lodge from 22-8-2006 to 25-8-2006; he has produced Ex. P. 8-copy of the register maintained at the lodge and Ex. P. 9, copy of the receipt issued, during the course of investigation. P.W. 5 is the Senior Police Inspector of Agripada Police Station, Mumbai; he registered a case in Crime No. 00/2006 on the complaint lodged by P.W. 1 as per Ex. P. 1; he conducted part of the investigation; he sent the victim girl to the medical examination as well as for age determination test; after completion of investigation in part, he sent the papers and victim girl to Bengaluru along with Sub-Inspector of Police-P.W. 3. P.W. 6 is the owner of Awadh Mahal Lodge; he has deposed that P.W. 4 is working as the Manager in the said lodge during the relevant point of time. He has also deposed about Exs. P. 8 and P. 9. P.W. 7 is the Head Constable of Ashok Nagar Police Station; he participated in the part of investigation. P.W. 8 is the Police Sub-Inspector of Ashok Nagar Police Station; he registered a case in Crime No. 483 of 2006 based on the transferred complaint received from Mumbai; he conducted scene of offence panchnama as per Ex. P. 2 in the house of accused 2; he also conducted part of the investigation. P.W. 9 is the doctor working at Bowring Hospital at the relevant point of time; he examined A4-Khaleed and issued certificate as per Ex. P. 13 evidencing that A4 was capable to have sexual intercourse. P.W. 10 is the Police Inspector of Ashok Nagar Police Station; he completed the investigation and laid the charge-sheet. P.W. 11 is the doctor working in the hospital working at Nagapada Police Hospital, Mumbai. He issued the certificate as per Ex. P. 3 after examining the victim girl. P. 13 evidencing that A4 was capable to have sexual intercourse. P.W. 10 is the Police Inspector of Ashok Nagar Police Station; he completed the investigation and laid the charge-sheet. P.W. 11 is the doctor working in the hospital working at Nagapada Police Hospital, Mumbai. He issued the certificate as per Ex. P. 3 after examining the victim girl. P.W. 12 is a tenant residing in the house of A2; he is also neighbour of A2; he has turned hostile to the case of prosecution. P.W. 13 is the elder sister of P.W. 1. She has also turned hostile to the case of prosecution. P.W. 14 is the doctor who was attached to Nagapada Hospital, Mumbai; he conducted age determination test and issued Ex. P. 4-certificate disclosing that the victim girl was aged about 15-16 years at the time of the incident. 8. It is disheartening to note that an innocent girl coming from Kadapa in Andhra Pradesh to Bengaluru to meet her sister was induced and was involved in prostitution; she was kept in captivity for 15 days at Bengaluru in the house of A1 and A2, from where the victim was forced to involve herself in prostitution; after 15 days, the victim was taken to Mumbai by accused 3 with a view to sell the victim to the third party in order to carry on prostitution forcibly; fortunately, the victim slipped from the hands of the accused 3 at Mumbai and approached the Police, who in-tum shifted the victim to Swathi Mahila Seva Sangha; the members of the Swathi Mahila Seva Sangha, Mumbai, assisted the victim girl to lodge complaint and to shift her to Bengaluru with the help of Mumbai Police. 9. Complaint came to be lodged as per Ex. P. 1 against four accused persons including three ladies (A1 to A3). All the three ladies were said to have been involved in inducing and forcing the victim girl to indulge in prostitution. A3 went a step further to sell the innocent victim girl in Mumbai. The aforementioned factors are detailed in the complaint-Ex. P. 1 lodged by the complainant-victim girl/prosecutrix. 10. The Prosecutrix is examined as P.W. 1. She has reiterated the very facts as found in her complaint-Ex. P. 1 lodged initially before the Agripada Police Station, Mumbai, which came to be transferred to Bengaluru, Ashok Nagar Police Station on the point of jurisdiction. The aforementioned factors are detailed in the complaint-Ex. P. 1 lodged by the complainant-victim girl/prosecutrix. 10. The Prosecutrix is examined as P.W. 1. She has reiterated the very facts as found in her complaint-Ex. P. 1 lodged initially before the Agripada Police Station, Mumbai, which came to be transferred to Bengaluru, Ashok Nagar Police Station on the point of jurisdiction. Even in her deposition, the victim has deposed that she came from Kadapa Village of Andhra Pradesh to Bengaluru on the first week of August 2006 inasmuch as the brother of the victim girl quarreled with her since the victim was not showing any interest in the work of the family; having frustrated, the victim left her house by selling a pair of ear rings for Rs. 300/-; she came to Bengaluru in a bus to visit her sister Kamalbi (not examined); she alighted from the bus in Central Bus Stand, Bengaluru (City Bus Stand, Bengaluru); she went to a shop where her brother-in-law Samiulla was running a watch repair shop near bus stand; however, her brother-in-law was not found, but the brother of her brother-in-law was sitting in the shop; the brother of Samiulla who was sitting in the Watch shop told the victim girl that her sister Kamalbi and Samiulla have changed their residence and that they do not stay any more at M.S. Palya; since she did not know about the address of her sister, she went to the house of accused 1, who was the friend of the sister of the victim girl; after reaching the house of accused 1, she told that she is interested to stay with her sister namely Kamalbi; accused 1 offered the victim food and clothes; after giving a day's shelter, accused 1 told the victim that one Haseena (A3) is the friend of the sister of the victim and that she may stay in the house of accused 3 for some period. So, saying accused 1 took the victim to the house situated in the ground floor of the building situated at Anepalya; in the said house both accused 2 and 3 were residing; accused 2 is the sister of accused 3; accused 1 told the victim that she should stay in the house of accused 2 and 3, till she meets her sister Kamalbi; the victim having seen the atmosphere in the house of accused 2 and accused 3 came to know that accused 1 to 3 had indulged her in prostitution; accused 2 and 3 did not allow the victim to go out of the house for 15 days and during such period, the victim girl was sexually assaulted by more than 10 persons; her legs and hands were tied to a cot by accused 2 and 3. After about 15 days, accused 2 gave Rs. 8,000/- to the victim in the presence of accused 1; thereafter, accused 1 took tire victim to her house and snatched money from the victim; later on, the victim once again went to City Market and telephoned to accused 3 and explained about her plight; at that point of time, accused 3 went to the place where the victim was staying and took her to Mumbai in the bus with an assurance that she would find a job for her as a domestic maid servant in Mumbai. The victim was lodged in a hotel for three days and thereafter, the victim having come to know that accused 3 would be selling her, she ran away from the clutches of accused 3 to meet Police who in-turn handed over her to a social organisation viz., Swathi Mahila Seva Sangha. Ultimately, the complaint came to be lodged on 19-9-2006 by the victim girl. 11. The victim was subjected to lengthy cross-examination by the defence. Evidence of P.W. 1 discloses that certain admissions are made by P.W. 1. Ultimately, the complaint came to be lodged on 19-9-2006 by the victim girl. 11. The victim was subjected to lengthy cross-examination by the defence. Evidence of P.W. 1 discloses that certain admissions are made by P.W. 1. Such admissions given by P.W. 1 would reveal that there were chances for her to escape from the clutches of accused 1 to 3 when she was in Bengaluru; she was taken from one place to another place in the City by bus; P.W. 1 did not raise hue and cry; she did not even try to grab the attention of the people at large; though she had opportunity to escape from the house of accused 2 and 3, she did not do so. P.W. 1 has however deposed that since accused 2 and 3 were always watching her, it was difficult for her to escape from their dutches. Be that as it may. Even assuming that the victim was living in the company of accused 1 to 3 for 15 days in Bengaluru without making any protest, the question to be decided in this appeal is: "Whether accused 1 to 3 have induced the victim for the sake of prostitution or not?" The answer is 'Yes' in view of the detailed evidence given by the victim before the Court which practically has remained un-controverted in so as it relates to accused 1 to 3 inducing her to prostitution. 12. It may be true that the victim came to Bengaluru from her native place to all alone in a bus. It may be true that she had got chance to go back to her village; so also, the material on record clearly reveal that she had got chance to escape from the clutches of accused 1 to 3. These facts would go to show that the victim was residing in the houses of accused 1 to 3. But the materials on record, more particularly the evidence of P.W. 1 would reveal that accused 1 to 3 induced the victim to involve in prostitution. 13. The evidence of P.W. 1 is amply supported by the evidence of P.W. 2, the social worker attached to Swathi Mahila Seva Sangha, Mumbai. She has deposed about the plight of the victim as stated by the victim before her. 13. The evidence of P.W. 1 is amply supported by the evidence of P.W. 2, the social worker attached to Swathi Mahila Seva Sangha, Mumbai. She has deposed about the plight of the victim as stated by the victim before her. The aforementioned facts relating to accused 1 to 3 inducing the victim to prostitution at Bengaluru and Mumbai were spoken to by the victim before P.W. 2. Absolutely no reason is forthcoming to disbelieve the version of P.W. 2 inasmuch as she is an independent social worker attached to voluntary organisation called Swathi Mahila Seva Sangha, Mumbai. P.W. 2 neither knew the accused nor knew the victim earlier to the incident. P.W. 2 has done her best to safeguard the interest of the victim by giving her shelter in the Sangha and thereafter to lodge the complaint. In the course of cross-examination P.W. 2 has deposed that she is a Degree holder in Psychology subject and that she is getting Rs. 8,250/- to work as a social worker in Swathi Mahila Seva Sangha, Mumbai. P.W. 2 has also visited Awadh Mahal Lodge, wherein the victim was housed and from where Exhibits P. 8 and P. 9 are seized. Thus, in our considered opinion, evidence of P.W. 2 supports the I version of P.W. 1. 14. Next important witness is P.W. 4. He is the Manager of Awadh Mahal Lodge, Mumbai. He has clarified that about 11.30 p.m., on 22-8-2006, a lady and a girl came to his lodge and asked for a double bedroom; the woman who had accompanied the girl disclosed her name as Haseena (A3); Haseena has also mentioned her husband's name as well as address in the register maintained by the lodge. Room No.10 was allotted to A3; both the woman as I well as girl were residing in the said room upto 25-8-2006 and thereafter they vacated the room. At the time of vacating the room, A3 alone was present but the girl was not present. On being asked by P.W. 4, accused 3 told that the girl who had accompanied her, had gone back to her native place. After some I days, P.W. 2 and one Mr. Adithya came to the lodge along with the girl (victim) for getting the girl identified by P.W. 4; P.W. 4 identified the girl (victim) as the person who stayed along with Haseena from 22-8-2006 to 25-8-2006. After some I days, P.W. 2 and one Mr. Adithya came to the lodge along with the girl (victim) for getting the girl identified by P.W. 4; P.W. 4 identified the girl (victim) as the person who stayed along with Haseena from 22-8-2006 to 25-8-2006. Accused 3 had given the name of the victim girl wrongly as Tabasum instead of Shakeela. Through P.W. 4, Exs. P. 8 and P. 9 are marked. Ex. P. 8 is nothing but the copy of the register maintained by the lodge and Ex. P. 9 is the copy of the receipt issued at the time of vacating the room. We do not find anything in the cross-examination of P.W. 4 so as to discredit his evidence. P.W. 4 has reiterated in his cross-examination that the victim girl had come along with accused 3 and stayed in Room No. 10 from 22-8-2006 to 25-8-2006 and from 25-8-2006, the victim girl did not come back to the lodge, Consequently, accused 3 alone vacated the room. Subsequently, Police came to his lodge and seized certain documents marked as Exs. P. 8 and P. 9. 15. P.W. 5 is the Senior Police Inspector attached to Agripada Police Station during the relevant point of time. He has clearly deposed that Police had secured the presence of the victim on 25-8-2006 and took her to the Police Station; on inquiry, P.W. 5 was convinced that the victim was in the frightened mood and therefore she was not disclosing the true facts. Thus, P.W. 5 sent the victim-P.W. 1 to Swathi Mahila Seva Sangha, a Non-Governmental Organisation for safety and for the purpose of Counselling the victim girl. On 19-9-2006, the victim came back to Police Station along with the social worker attached to Swathi Mahila Seva Sangha, and lodged the complaint as per Ex. P. 1 in the presence of P.W. 2. He conducted part of the investigation. He got the victim medically examined and thereafter, the victim was subjected to age determination test by the doctor. The evidence of P.W. supports the case of the prosecution in all material particulars. 16. P.W. 14 is the doctor who conducted Age Determination Test on the victim girl and issued the certificate as per Ex. P. 4 which discloses that the victim girl was aged about 15 to 16 years. The evidence of P.W. supports the case of the prosecution in all material particulars. 16. P.W. 14 is the doctor who conducted Age Determination Test on the victim girl and issued the certificate as per Ex. P. 4 which discloses that the victim girl was aged about 15 to 16 years. From the aforementioned materials, it is amply clear that accused 1 to 3 harboured the victim girl with them and induced her to prostitution. She was kept in confinement by accused 1 to 3. These accused had taken the advantage of the faith of the victim reposed on the accused, they induced the victim girl to go from one place to another place and induced her to prostitution repeatedly at Bengaluru for about 15 days. Therefore, in our considered opinion the Trial Court is not justified in acquitting the accused merely on conjunctures and surmises. 17. We find from the judgment of the Trial Court that the Trial Court has given much importance to the minor variations in the evidence as also to the deemed consent of the victim to stay in the house of accused 1 to 3. As we have already mentioned supra that P.W. 1 might have stayed in the house of accused 1 to 3 because of her helpless condition. She believed the version of accused 1 that she would take the victim girl to her sister's place, later A1 shifted the victim girl to the house of accused 2 and 3. All these factors are amply proved by the prosecution. Merely because P.W. 1-prosecutrix stayed in the house of accused 1 to 3, the same would not give right to any person to induce the victim for prostitution. Accused 1 to 3 have induced the victim girl for prostitution. We find that the reasons assigned and conclusions arrived at by the Court below are improper and incorrect. 18. However, on going through the entire materials on record, we find that the Trial Court is justified in concluding that the victim girl was aged 18-19 years. Ex. P. 3 is the certificate issued by the doctor-P.W. 11 dated 19-9-2006 reveals that the victim girl was aged about 15 to 16 years. Same is the evidence of P.W. 14 another doctor. Ex. P. 3 is the certificate issued by the doctor-P.W. 11 dated 19-9-2006 reveals that the victim girl was aged about 15 to 16 years. Same is the evidence of P.W. 14 another doctor. However, P.W. 2, an independent social worker in the cross-examination has admitted that at the time of admission of prosecutrix in the Ashrama she has mentioned her age as 19 years. In the complaint-Ex. P. 1, the age of the victim is mentioned as 17 years. Even at the time of examination of P.W. 1 before the doctors, she has mentioned her age as 17 years. In her application filed before the Sessions Court, Bengaluru, as per Ex. D. 1, she has mentioned her age as 19 years. In the said application, victim had pleaded that she may be handed over to her parents. Thus, it is clear that there is no cogent material to show that the victim was below 16 years of age. Even otherwise, the doctors themselves have opined that the victim was aged 15 to 16 years. Two years margin may have to be given in such matters more particularly when the other materials on record disclose that the victim was either aged about 17 years or 19 years etc. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the Trial Court is justified in concluding that the victim was not below the age of 16 years during the relevant point of time. We also find that the Trial Court is justified in acquitting A4. Except vague assertions by P.W. 1, no other reliable material is forthcoming against him to show that he has involved in any of the offences with which he is charged. P.W. 1 also came to know about the name of A4 only through the talks of others. In the absence of reliable material against him, in our considered opinion the Trial Court is justified in acquitting him. The view taken by the Trial Court while acquitting A4 appears to be a possible view in the lighter facts and circumstances of the case. 19. In view of the discussions made supra, we are of the consider opinion that accused 1 to 3 need to be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 5 and 6 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 aril Section 342 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. 19. In view of the discussions made supra, we are of the consider opinion that accused 1 to 3 need to be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 5 and 6 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 aril Section 342 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Having heard the Amicus Curiae the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor on the question of sentence following order is made: ORDER (a) Accused 1 to 3 are convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 5 and 6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and for the offence under Section 342 of IPC. (b) Accused 1 is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for - Four (4) years for the offence punishable under Section 5 of the Act and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-. (c) Accused 2 and 3 are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for- (i) One (1) year for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Act and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- each; (ii) Four (4) years for the offence punishable under Section 5 of the Act and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- each; (iii) Seven (7) years for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the Act with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- each. (iv) In case of default of payment of fine amount in respect of the offences under Sections 3, 5 and 6 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, the accused 1 shall undergo imprisonment for a further period of six (6) months; and accused 2 and 3 shall undergo further imprisonment for a period of three (3) years. (d) A1 to A3 are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one (1) year and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of fine amount they have to undergo further imprisonment for three (3) months for the offences under Section 342 of IPC. All the sentences imposed on the accused 1 to 3 shall run concurrently the convicted accused shall be given the benefit of set off for the period of imprisonment already undergone by them in the crime in question. Appeal is allowed accordingly.