IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment emphasizes the importance of reliable evidence, corroboration, fair investigation, and the fatal impact of non-examination of crucial witnesses and absence of essential documents in criminal cases.

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. 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. 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, petiti