JUDGMENT 1. Assailing the judgment dtd. 29/11/2010 in Crl.A.No.421 of 2010 on the file of Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Judge, Family Court, Guntur, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the calender and judgment dtd. 13/8/2010 in C.C.No.627 of 2007 on the file of Court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile Magistrate), Guntur, for the charges under Sec. 342 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") and Sec. 5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act (hereinafter referred to as "ITP Act"), the petitioner/accused No.1 filed the present criminal revision case under Sec. 397 r/w.401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C."). 2. The revision case was admitted on 21/3/2011 and the sentence of imprisonment was suspended vide orders in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.1016 of 2011. 3. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is as follows: Accused No.1 is a Mobile Beautician by profession. On the deceitful words said to be made by the accused No.1 to P.W.1, L.Ws.2 and 3, they believed that she would provide better jobs for them at Bangalore and she asked P.W.1 and others to come to her house. For which, on 19/9/2007, P.W.1 along with L.Ws.2 and 3 went to her (A.1) house. By then, accused No.1, her husband Prakash/accused No.2 and four more people were also there in the said house. Thereafter, accused No.1 informed to P.W.1 and other women, who were present by then, that they were taken to Bangalore for the purpose of prostitution. For which, P.W.1, L.Ws.2 and 3 refused and then accused No.1 forcibly confined them in a room by locking the doors for an hour and then police party came and rescued them and took them to the police station and after examination, P.W.1 and other women were sent away. Then registered a case in Cr.No.237 of 2007 of West L&O Circle, Guntur Town police station against accused of the offence under Ss. 342, 506 IPC and Sec. 5 and 6 of ITP Act and after completion of investigation, L.W.16/M.Nageswara Rao, Inspector of Police laid charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 6. 4. The charge sheet was numbered as C.C.No.627 of 2007 on the file of Court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile Magistrate), Guntur and the charges leveled against the accused No.1 are Sec. 342, 506 IPC and Ss. 5. 4. The charge sheet was numbered as C.C.No.627 of 2007 on the file of Court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile Magistrate), Guntur and the charges leveled against the accused No.1 are Sec. 342, 506 IPC and Ss. 5. and 6 of ITP Act and against accused Nos.2 to 6 are Ss. 5 and 6 of ITP Act and after full pledged trial Court found the accused No.1 guilty for the charges under Sec. 342 of IPC and Sec. 5 of ITP Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three (3) years and also pay a fine of Rs.1, 000.00, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one (1) month for the charge under Sec. 5 of ITP Act and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1, 000.00, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment of one (1) month for the charge under Sec. 342 of IPC. The accused No.1 found not guilty for the charges under Sec. 506 of IPC and Sec. 6 of ITP Act and also accused Nos.2 to 6 found not guilty for the charges under Ss. 5 and 6 of ITP Act. 5. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court, the petitioner/accused No.1 filed an appeal, vide Crl.A.No.421 of 2010, before the Court of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Judge, Family Court, Guntur and the same was dismissed by confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court. Against the said judgment of the first Appellate Court, the present criminal revision case was preferred by the petitioner/accused No.1. 6. Now the point that arises for determination in this revision is "whether the judgment and conviction dtd. 13/8/2010 passed in C.C.No.627 of 2007, which was confirmed on 29/11/2010 in Crl.A.No.421 of 2010, is illegal, perverse and impropriety under law?" 7. 6. Now the point that arises for determination in this revision is "whether the judgment and conviction dtd. 13/8/2010 passed in C.C.No.627 of 2007, which was confirmed on 29/11/2010 in Crl.A.No.421 of 2010, is illegal, perverse and impropriety under law?" 7. Sri Posani Venkateswara Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri P.Sai Surya Teja, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1, submits that even in the first appeal, petitioner/accused No.1 took a specific defense that there is no material to convict her and evidence placed before the trial Court is not properly appreciated; that neither mediators report, on which the criminal law set into motion, nor F.I.R. were marked, as well investigating officers were also not examined; that in spite of vehement opposition made by the learned counsel for the petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge, confirmed the conviction and sentenced passed by the trial Court by erroneously gave findings that the first Appellate Court did not find any circumstances in the evidence of prosecution witnesses to discredit their testimony nor any reasons to interfere with the findings of the trial Court and that the learned Senior Counsel expressed his displeasure for nonappreciation of evidence in proper manner by both the Courts below to arrive at the conclusion. 8. Learned Senior Counsel further argued at length from the point of prosecution side from trial till conviction and pointed out umpteen of contradictions and omissions in the evidence of P.W.1, which were not even considered either by the trial Court or first appellate Court; that there is no consistency is at all found from the evidence of P.W.1 regarding her statement that she was confined in a room and no evidence was established by the prosecution to prove that P.W.1 and others were confined in a room, which is fall under Sec. 342 of IPC. 9. Against the same, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that through the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 4, the prosecution is able to establish the charges leveled against the petitioner/accused No.1 and both the Courts below rightly appreciated the evidence placed by the prosecution and convicted the petitioner and there are no grounds to interfere with the calender and judgment of the trial Court as well judgment of the first appellate Court. 10. 10. This Court perused the evidence of P.W.1, in which, in the chief examination, she deposed that she was forcibly confined in a room along with L.Ws.2 and 3 by accused No.1 and locked the doors of the room. Whereas the same witness during the cross examination deposed that no rooms were locked. The said inconsistency itself causes any amount of doubt over the prosecution case. More so, in the entire evidence of P.W.1, the date of the alleged incident was not stated by her. 11. Apart from the above, according to P.W.1 at the time of the alleged raid time was 09.00 p.m. Among the police party one S.I. of Police and one Constable were there and they were taken to her to the police station and after examination, they were sent. But whereas the material placed on record by the prosecution before the trial Court shows that examination of P.W.1 said to be done by L.W.16/M.Nageswara Rao, Inspector of Police, but not L.W.15/R.Dharmendra Babu, S.I. of Police. So, this inconsistency is also a stray rather flaw in the case of the prosecution. 12. On such material, when this Court perused the testimonies of PW3 and 4, in anywhere of the documents placed before the trial Court, not mentioned that P.W.3-B.Anjaiah/ASI and P.W.4-V.Vijayakumari/Women Police Constable, were also participated in the alleged raid said to have taken place on 19/9/2007 and anyone of the documents produced by the prosecution not speaking well that they are also members of the raid party. 13. Even taken into consideration the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4, P.W.3 deposed that he visited the house of petitioner/accused No.1 on 19/9/2007 at 08.00 p.m., whereas P.W.4 deposed that she along with raid party visited the house of the petitioner at 07.30 p.m. itself. 14. On which, this Court closely perused the testimony of P.W.3, he deposed that when they reached the house of petitioner, they found accused Nos.1 to 6 at P.W.2's house. On enquiry by L.W.15/R.Dharmendra Babu, S.I of Police, accused revealed that they are running a Beauty Parlor and they examined each accused separately and they revealed that they mesmerized the individual women, who came to their Beauty Parlor and running prostitution by them and also found P.W.1 and they prepared mediators report in the presence of L.Ws.5 and 6, who were examined as P.W.5 and 6. 15. 15. Before further discussing the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4, this Court perused the evidence of P.Ws.5 and 6, who are said to be mediators. In one voice, they categorically deposed that on the directions of the police they signed in some written papers and none were arrested in their presence by the police and they do not know the accused. So, the evidence of P.Ws.5 and 6 is of no use to the case of the prosecution, which goes distrust on the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4, who said to be raid party and followed the S.I. of Police L.W.15/R.Dharmendra Babu. 16. Even on perusal of the cross examination of P.W.3, for every question, he denied like that he could not remember the door number of the house, whether L.W.15 has seized any document with regard to house of P.W.2, whether it is mentioned in mediatornama that all the accused stated that they are running Beauty Parlor at first instance and he could not remember how many doors fixed to the house of P.W.2. He categorically admitted that he did not sign the mediators report. Thus, nothing was found in the evidence of P.W.3 in favour of the prosecution. 17. Moreover, one more fact is to be noted is that, when a suggestion is made to P.W.3 that he was one of the writer in the police station, for which, he deposed that he never be a writer in the police station. Whereas P.W.4, who is also said to be members of the raid party, during cross examination deposed that P.W.3 worked as a writer in the police station. This contradiction or inconsistency in between the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 again goes against the prosecution version. 18. A more interesting fact in this case is neither the mediators report nor the F.I.R. were marked. One more glaring fact, which is to be noticed, is that neither L.W.15/R.Dharmendra Babu, S.I. of Police, who said to be conducted raid on 19/9/2007 nor L.W.16/M.Nageswara Rao, Inspector of Police, who investigated the offence, were examined. For non-examination of L.Ws.15 and 16, the trial Court justified as "the evidence of the victim is enough and free from doubt, the non-examination of investigating officers is not fatal to the prosecution case." 19. For non-examination of L.Ws.15 and 16, the trial Court justified as "the evidence of the victim is enough and free from doubt, the non-examination of investigating officers is not fatal to the prosecution case." 19. In view of the said finding, this Court is compelled to see to what extent the evidence of P.W.1 is very much free from doubt, what is the effect of non-examination of investigating officers i.e., L.W.15/R.Dharmendra Babu, S.I. of Police and L.W.16/M.Nageswara Rao, Inspector of Police and whether it is fatal or non-fatal to the prosecution case. 20. When closely perused the testimony of P.W.1, she deposed that she got acquaintance with accused No.1 as she is a Beautician and invited her to her house. So that she went to her house and at that time she found L.Ws.2 and 3, who are equivalent to her age. Accused No.1 expressed that she is going to take them Bangalore for prostitution, when they refused, accused No.1 forcibly confined them in a room and locked the doors of the room for one hour and after one hour police party came for their rescue. 21. During the cross examination of P.W.1, it is elicited that they went to the house of accused No.1 at about 09.00 p.m. At the police party one S.I. and one constable were there and they were taken to police station and after examination, they were sent. The other women apart from her were sitting in the room, but no rooms were locked. She was examined by L.W.15/R.Dharmendra Babu/S.I. of Police and recorded her statement. 22. This is the sum and substance of the evidence of P.W.1. In order to find the guilt of the accused for the charge under Sec. 342 of IPC, the trial Court made a finding that the evidence of P.W.1 is convincing and free from doubt, cogent and consistent. Admittedly, L.Ws.2 and 3 were not at all examined or other five women said to be in the house of accused No.1 were also not examined by the prosecution. In chief examination P.W.1 deposed that they were confined in a room locked from outside, but, whereas, during the cross examination, she deposed that rooms were not at all locked. 23. Admittedly, L.Ws.2 and 3 were not at all examined or other five women said to be in the house of accused No.1 were also not examined by the prosecution. In chief examination P.W.1 deposed that they were confined in a room locked from outside, but, whereas, during the cross examination, she deposed that rooms were not at all locked. 23. Further, according to P.W.1, they went to the house of accused No.1 at 09.00 p.m., whereas P.W.3 deposed that they visited the house of P.W.2 at 08.00 p.m. and P.W.4 deposed that they visited the house at 07.30 p.m. itself. When P.W.1 confined in a room at 09.00 p.m., how the police party came to the house of the accused No.1 and rescued her at 07.30 or 08.00 p.m., that itself goes to show that the evidence of P.W.1 is totally untrustworthy, because, the evidence of P.W.1 rather she spoken of the fact in the evidence by her on oath was not supported by any of the prosecution witness or material produced by the prosecution and the testimony of P.Ws.3 and 4 is also very doubtful as discussed supra. 24. For all these reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that P.W.1, PW3 and PW4 cannot be branded as trustworthy witnesses. But, on the other hand, the trial Court erroneously branded the evidence of P.W.1 PW3 and PW4 is free from doubt and the Court can rely upon her evidence and found the guilt of the accused No.1 for the charges under Sec. 342 of IPC and Sec. 5 of ITP Act. 25. It is very clear to state that the investigating officers were not at all examined. Furthermore, it is a settled practice invoking that F.I.R. is mandatory for commencement of the investigation in a criminal case and it is a fundamental right of the accused to get a copy of it under Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C. Investigation without registration of F.I.R. is impermissible in law and violates the right of fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, no doubt, F.I.R. is not a substantive piece of evidence, but it sets the criminal law into motion and helps the investigation agency to get the facts and circumstances of the case. 26. 26. It is also settled law that no person can be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of commission of the act, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence, as per Article 20 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, before convicting any person on circumstantial evidence alone, the Courts have to take into account all the chain of circumstances which should directly point to the culpability of the accused and should not leave any doubt, as per the principle of law no innocent person should ever be convicted. 27. As already stated supra, F.I.R. is not a substantial piece of evidence, but it can be used to corroborate or contradict the testimony of the informant, or to show the conduct of the accused, as well F.I.R. cannot be used to prove the facts stated in it, unless it falls under the exceptions of the hearsay rule, such as dying declarations, confessions, or statements made under Sec. 32 of the Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, an accused can be convicted without proving the contents of the F.I.R, if there is other sufficient and reliable evidence to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt only. 28. In a case reported between Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2008) 5 SCC 230 the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the accused for the murder of one Jessica Lal, despite the fact that the F.I.R. was lodged by an eyewitness who later turned hostile and resiled from his statement. But the Court relied on the circumstantial evidence, the ballistic report, the recovery of the weapon, and the testimony of other witnesses to prove the involvement of the accused. So, the prosecution must be placed sufficient and reliable evidence to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all doubt. 29. However, the F.I.R. may be the only or the most crucial piece of evidence against the accused, especially when the offence is committed in secrecy or there are no other eyewitnesses or material evidence. In such cases, the prosecution has to prove the contents of the F.I.R. by examining the informant and other corroborative witnesses, and by satisfying the Court that the F.I.R. was made voluntarily, truthfully, and promptly. 30. In such cases, the prosecution has to prove the contents of the F.I.R. by examining the informant and other corroborative witnesses, and by satisfying the Court that the F.I.R. was made voluntarily, truthfully, and promptly. 30. In the present case on hand, as per prosecution, testimonies of PW3 and PW4, and the mediators report said to be drafted on 19/9/2007 at 08.00 p.m. in the presence of P.Ws.5 and 6, who are not at all supported the version of the prosecution and resiled to the prosecution case and they categorically deposed that on the instructions/directions of police, they signed on some written papers. So, the contents of the mediators report, dtd. 19/9/2007, which is not even marked, not proved. For the reasons best known to the prosecution, the investigating officers were also not examined. Likewise, basing on the said mediators report, the F.I.R. said to be registered was also not marked. 31. At this juncture, it is making worthy note to mention a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported between Munna Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2023 SCC 634 wherein at paragraph No.28 held as follows: "28. Before embarking on the exercise of deciding the fate of these appellants, it would be apt to take note of certain principles relevant for a decision on these two appeals. Needless to observe, such principles have evolved over the years and crystallized into 'settled principles of law'. These are: (a). Sec. 134 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, enshrines the well-recognized maxim that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. In other words, it is the quality of evidence that matters and not the quantity. As a sequitur, even in a case of murder, it is not necessary to insist upon a plurality of witnesses and the oral evidence of a single witness, if found to be reliable and trustworthy, could lead to a conviction. (b). Generally speaking, oral testimony may be classified into three categories, viz.: (i)Wholly reliable; (ii)Wholly unreliable; (iii) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. The first two category of cases may not pose serious difficulty for the court in arriving at its conclusion(s). However, in the third category of cases, the court has to be circumspect and look for corroboration of any material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial, as a requirement of the rule of prudence. (c). The first two category of cases may not pose serious difficulty for the court in arriving at its conclusion(s). However, in the third category of cases, the court has to be circumspect and look for corroboration of any material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial, as a requirement of the rule of prudence. (c). A defective investigation is not always fatal to the prosecution where ocular testimony is found credible and cogent. While in such a case the court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence, a faulty investigation cannot in all cases be a determinative factor to throw out a credible prosecution version. (d). Non-examination of the Investigating Officer must result in prejudice to the accused; if no prejudice is caused, mere non-examination would not render the prosecution case fatal. (e). Discrepancies do creep in, when a witness deposes in a natural manner after lapse of some time, and if such discrepancies are comparatively of a minor nature and do not go to the root of the prosecution story, then the same may not be given undue importance." 32. In the above judgment, two important aspects to be noticed is testimony may be classified into three categories i.e., (i) wholly reliable, (ii) wholly unreliable and (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In the case on hand, with regard to the evidence of P.W.1, as this Court already made an elaborate discussion supra, the same is wholly unreliable. 33. As well, another settled principle referred in Manu Lal case (referred to supra) that "the non-examination of Investigating Officer must result in prejudice to the Accused; if no prejudice is caused, mere non-examination would not render the prosecution case fatal". 34. Herein this case, except self-served testimony of P.W.1, which is full of contradictions, omissions and unsupported, the investigating officers must be examined to decide whether the evidence of P.W.1 is reliable to find the guilt of the accused for the charges under Sec. 342 and Sec. 5 of ITP Act. In those circumstances, the non-examination of investigating officers resulted in prejudice to the case of the prosecution. 35. Since the investigating officers did not enter into witness box, the accused could not have any occasion to cross examine them to elicit contradictions and omissions and that missing links could have been provided by the investigating officers. In those circumstances, the non-examination of investigating officers resulted in prejudice to the case of the prosecution. 35. Since the investigating officers did not enter into witness box, the accused could not have any occasion to cross examine them to elicit contradictions and omissions and that missing links could have been provided by the investigating officers. Whether or not non-examination of a witnesses has caused prejudice to the defence is essentially a question of fact and an inference is required to be drawn having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. In this particular case, due to nonexamination of L.Ws.15 and 16/investigating officers, truth or otherwise of P.W.1 cannot be looked into. Moreover, nonexamination of investigating officers creates a material lacuna in the case of the prosecution to nail the accused. This creates reasonable doubt against the prosecution case. 36. No doubt, the evidence of police witnesses cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they belong to the police force. Why this mention is, P.Ws.3 and 4 are police witness, but nowhere in the prosecution case did they mention that they participated in the alleged raid. If L.Ws.15 and 16/Investigating Officers were entered into witness box, they might have stated about the presence of P.Ws.3 and 4 while conducting raid in the house of petitioner/accused No.1, but they did not do so. Moreover, in order to analyze or scrutinize the testimony of witnesses, their evidence needs to be subjected to strict scrutinize as far as corroboration of their evidence in material particulars should be sought. 37. While arguing the case, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner invited to draw the attention of this Court and brought to the notice of this Court a judgment reported in between Parvat Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2020) 4 SCC 33 wherein at paragraph No.13 held that "as per the settled proposition of law a statement recorded under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. is inadmissible in evidence and cannot be relied upon or used to convict the accused. As per the settled proposition of law, the statement recorded under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. can be used only to prove the contradictions and/or omissions." 38. As per the settled proposition of law, the statement recorded under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. can be used only to prove the contradictions and/or omissions." 38. Herein this case, it is essential to refer the findings of the learned Sessions Judge at paragraph No.12 of the judgment as follows: "The evidence of P.W.1 is to the effect that she studied upto 10th class and she was in search of a job, at which time A1 assured her that she would provide her a job. The evidence of P.W.1 shows that she had acquaintance with her as a beautician. Believing those words of A1, she went to her house where she found L.Ws.2 and 3 in her house. It is only when she went to A1's house that she came to know about her intention to send P.W.1 and others to Bangalore for the sake of prostitution. In the 161 statement of P.W.1 and also in her evidence, she stated that A1 forcibly confined her in a room and locked the doors when she refused to go for prostitution. A suggestion was given to P.W.1 that she did not state this fact before the police that she was confined in the room for one hour. It is true that the 161 statement of P.W.1 does not contain any specific time of confinement as stated by P.W.1 in her statement, but on an overall reading of the evidence of P.W.1 it is clear that A1 has confined P.W.1 in her house." 39. In the above, the learned Sessions Judge categorically held that in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1 and also her evidence she stated that accused No.1 forcibly confined her in a room and locked the doors, when she refused to go for prostitution. Even the learned Sessions Judge relied on 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1 and upheld the conviction passed against the petitioner/accused No.1, which impermissible as per the law laid down in Parvat Singh case (referred to supra). 40. Learned Senior Counsel while addressing the arguments submits that the accused is entitled to a fair investigation. Fair investigation and fair trial are concomitant to preservation of fundamental right of an accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. But the State has a larger obligation i.e., to maintain law and order, public order and preservation of peace and harmony in society. Fair investigation and fair trial are concomitant to preservation of fundamental right of an accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. But the State has a larger obligation i.e., to maintain law and order, public order and preservation of peace and harmony in society. A victim of a crime, thus, is equally entitled to a fair investigation. He also brought to the notice of this Court a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported between Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab., (2009) 1 SCC 441 41. Having regard to the above, in a nutshell, the evidence of P.W.1 is not trustworthy and her evidence is totally full of contradictions, omissions and no corroboration to the testimony of P.Ws.3 and 4 and not supportive to the prosecution version. No trustworthy evidence was placed on record by the prosecution before the trial Court or first Appellate Court to find the petitioner/accused No.1 guilty for the charges under Sec. 342 of IPC and Sec. 5 of ITP Act. 42. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that both the Courts below without closely verifying the material on record in particularly evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 and not considering the lacunas in the prosecution case i.e, none examination of investigating officers/L.Ws.15 and 16 and non-marking of the mediators report and F.I.R., erroneously found the petitioner/accused No.1 guilty for the charges leveled against her, which is nothing but flaw and illegal under law. 43. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed against the petitioner/accused No.1, vide calender and judgment dtd. 13/8/2010 passed in C.C.No.627 of 2007 on the file of Court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile Magistrate), Guntur as confirmed in the judgment dtd. 29/11/2010 in Crl.A.No.421 of 2010 on the file of Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Judge, Family Court, Guntur, are hereby set aside. Consequently, the revision petitioner/accused No.1 is acquitted of the charges leveled against her. The fine amount paid by the petitioner/accused No.1, if any, shall be refunded to her. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.