The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; uncorroborated testimony is insufficient for conviction.

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The appellants (accused Nos.1 and 2), who have been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 366-A read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 5(b) of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 , and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of seven years, are before this Court.

2. PW9, the complainant, lodged an FIR stating the following:

● On 2.8.2006, she left her residence in Sirsi and boarded a bus to Bengaluru on 3.8.2006. Subsequently, she took an auto to the house of Shivarajkumar, who was not present, and then returned to the bus stand to continue her journey via Kalburagi to Bengaluru.

● On 8.8.2006, she proceeded to the Harihara Bus Stand and, after alighting, boarded a train to Bengaluru. While on the train, due to the absence of available seating, accused Nos. 1 and 2 approached her and inquired about her destination. Upon her stating that she was traveling to Bengaluru in search of employment, they took her to their residence in Chikkbanawara, where she remained for approximately fifteen days.

● Thereafter, the accused took her to Shravanabelgola, where she stayed for one day. At that location, the accused induced her to engage in prostitution, which she refused. The accused then took her to Dharmasthala, where they again attempted to induce her into prostitution, and she again refused. Subsequently, she was returned to the residence of Accused No. 2 in Chikkbanawara, where she stayed for an additional fifteen days. During this period, a sleeping tablet was reportedly added to her cool drinks, and she was compelled to remain with the accused, who continued to attempt to force her to engage in prostitution.

3. On September 20, 2006, the accused took P.W.9 by train to Haveri. On September 21, 2006, she was taken to their residence at Hosanagara. On September 23, 2006, she contacted a person named Shivaram from her native place to inform him that she was staying at Hosanagara. Subsequently, a complaint was registered against the accused.

4. To prove its case, the prosecution examined P.W.s 1 to 18, introduced documents as Exhibits P.1 to P.21(a), and marked objects as M.O. Nos. 1 to 4.

5. After considering the evidence and the arguments of both parties, the Trial Court framed issues for consideration and held that “the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt,” thereby sustaining the conviction and sentence.

6. Counsel for the appellant argued that, apart from the complainant’s oral allegation, no substantive evidence establishes that the accused forcibly took the complainant at Chikkabanawara or induced her to engage in prostitution. He further contended that the medical evidence clearly shows that there was no recent sexual assault on the complainant.

7. The appellant’s counsel also submitted that the medical records (Exhibits P.2 to P.4) are contradictory, and the testimony of P.W.3, the doctor, is neither trustworthy nor credible due to conflicting opinions.

8. Additionally, counsel argued that P.W.2, the owner of the house at Chikkabanawara, has turned hostile, thereby weakening the prosecution’s case that the accused induced the complainant to engage in prostitution at that location.

9. In response, the Additional Government Advocate for the State maintained that the charge-sheet material and the testimony of P.W.9 clearly establish that the accused induced the complainant to carry out prostitution. He noted that cross- examination did not reveal any inconsistencies in the complainant’s statement. Accordingly, the prosecution had established the accused’s guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, and the Trial Court’s judgment and sentence were rightly passed.

10. The sole issue for consideration is whether the prosecution has indeed established the accused’s guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, and whether the Trial Court’s judgment and sentence are legally sustainable.

11. In her testimony as P.W.9, the complainant corroborated the prosecution’s case. She stated tha