IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER FRIDAY, THE 14TH AUGUST 2009 / 23RD SRAVANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 242 of 2001 --------------------------- CRA.270/1997 of SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKOE CC.411/1998 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KOZHIKODE .................... REVN. PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/A3 & 4: ------------------------------------ 1. N.P.UMMERKOYA, S/O. MUHAMMED, KULANGARATHOPPE PADANNA, NEAR CALICUT GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL, KOZHIKODE. 2. KUNHITHEEN KOYA (AS), S/O.ABDULLAKUTTY, PUTHIYANGADI VEEDU, MUKHADAR, NAGARAM AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAMKUMAR RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: --------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ASST.COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (SOUTH), CALICUT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.MUHAMMED PUZHAKKARA. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/08/2009, ALONG WITH CRL.R.P.Nos.351 & 599/2001, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. Basheer , J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.Nos. 242, 351 & 599 of 2001 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14th day of August, 2009 Order Petitioners who have been concurrently found guilty, convicted and sentenced by the trial court as well as the appellate court under Sections 3(1), 3(2)(b), 4(2)(c) and 8 (a) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act have preferred these revision petitions challenging the order of conviction and sentence passed against them. 2. Petitioners who are four in number, along with four others, allegedly including the Manager/Occupier of a Tourist Home, the broker or agent, prostitutes and customers etc. were charge sheeted by the Police under Sections 3(1), 3(2)(b), 4(2)(c) and 8(a) of the Act alleging that they were caught red handed while being engaged in prostitution at about 4.30 PM on November 24, 1992. 3. Accused No.1 the alleged occupier of the Tourist Home died during the pendency of the case. Accused No.2, 6 and 7 absconded. Ultimately the petitioners in these revision petitions who were arraigned as accused Nos.3, 4, 5 and 8 faced trial. 4. The prosecution examined Pws.1 to 6 and marked Crl.RPs.242,351 & 599/2001. : 2 : Exts.P1 to P3. There was no oral or documentary evidence on the side of the defence. The trial court found that the charge against the 4 accused who faced trial had been satisfactorily established and accordingly convicted and sentenced them. 5. Petitioner in Crl.R.P.No.351/2001 who was arraigned as accused No.3 was found guilty under section 8(a) of the Act and convicted and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months. Accused No.4 who is petitioner in Crl.RP.No.599/2001 was found guilty under section 4(2)(c) of the Act and convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. 6. Accused Nos.5 and 8 who are the petitioners in Crl.RP.242/2001 were found guilty under Section 4(2)(c) and Section 3(1) of the Act respectively. Accused No.5 was convicted and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year, while accused No.8 was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-. In appeal the sessions Court confirmed the above order of conviction and sentence passed against all of them. Hence these revision petitions. Crl.RPs.242,351 & 599/2001. : 3 : 7. As has been noticed already, accused No.1 was stated to be the Manager/Occupier of the tourist home. Accused Nos.3 and 7 were stated to be the two prostitutes who were found in the tourist home and accused No.4 was the alleged broker. Accused No.5 was stated to be an employee of the tourist home and accused No.8 was the receptionist. The prosecution case in brief was that the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Kozhikode City who was examined as Pw.6 had, on getting information that prostitution was being carried on in the tourist home owned by accused No.1, authorized the Circle Inspector of Police to conduct a raid. Accordingly Pw.4 the Circle Inspector and his party which included a woman constable raided the tourist home and found that a brothel was being run in the office room and room No.103 of the tourist home. According to the prosecution, accused No.1 Manager/Occupier and accused No.8 receptionist aided and assisted running of the brothel. The two prostitutes namely accused Nos. 3 and 7 and two customers (accused Nos.2 and 6) were also found at the premises. Accused Nos.4 and Crl.RPs.242,351 & 599/2001. : 4 : 5 the two brokers/Pimps arranged the customers for the above purpose. Pw.3 and 4 deposed before the court that they found the doors of the office room partly closed and on peeping through the gap they found accused No.3 lying on the cot half naked. She had removed her blouse and was exhibiting her breast. These two witnesses deposed that accused No.1 was asking accused No.2 whether accused No.3 was good enough. He demanded Rs.100/- from accused No.2. Accused No.1 further told accused No.2 that if he wanted another woman, she was available in room No.103. But accused No.2 replied that he was satisfied with accused No.3. It is on the basis of this allegation that accused Nos.1 and 3 were arrested. Thereafter the Police party raided room No.103 which was found partly open. According to Pws.3 and 4, accused Nos.4 to 7 were inside the room and accused No.7 was found lying in the room wearing only a skirt and blouse. These accused were also arrested by the Police party. 9. I have been taken through the oral testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. The prosecution case in my view is totally unbelievable, to say the least. According to the Crl.RPs.242,351 & 599/2001. : 5 : prosecution, accused No.3 was found lying in the office room of the tourist home with her body partly exposed. Two men were also along with her in the said room. It cannot be believed that any woman would indulge in such an activity even if she be a prostitute in broad day light and that too in the office room of a tourist home without locking the door. Same is the case with the allegation that accused No.7 was found lying half naked in room No.103 with two or three men. Yet again the allegation is that the door of the said room was also kept ajar. It must be remembered that Pws.3 to 6 are Police Officers. Significantly, Pw.1 and 2 who were independent witnesses and who had allegedly attested the scene mahazar turned hostile to the prosecution. These witnesses asserted that they were compelled to put their signature in the scene mahazar at the Police station. 10. Having carefully perused the oral testimony of the witnesses, I have no hesitation to hold that these witnesses cannot be believed at all to bring home the charge against the petitioners/accused. The evidence of these witnesses is totally artificial and untrustworthy and bristled Crl.RPs.242,351 & 599/2001. : 6 : contradictions. 11. Having perused the entire materials available on record, I am satisfied that the order of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioners is liable to be set aside. I do so. 12. Petitioners are found not guilty and acquitted. The bail bonds executed by them shall stand cancelled. The revision petitions are allowed. A.K. Basheer Judge. an.