IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21.08.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYAN Crl.A.No.1320 of 2025 State of Tamilnadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Reddychavadi Police Station, Cuddalore District. ...Appellant Vs.

1.Satharmulla

2.Najmulsikthar

3.Babushek

4.Selvam @ Kavin

5.Dhanush ...Respondents Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of Cr.P.C./Section 419 of BNSS to set aside the order of acquittal dated 26.03.2024 made in S.C.No.234 of 2021 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Cuddalore and convict the accused.

For Appellant : Mr.A.Damodaran, Additional Public Prosecutor For Respondents : Mrs.N.Premalatha for R4 & R5

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.S.RAMESH,J.)

The appellant/Investigation Officer had laid a charge sheet before the Trial Court against the respondents herein, who were arrayed as accused 1 to 3, 6 and 7, charging them of having committed the offences under Sections 3(2)(a), 4(1), 5(1)(a), 5(1)(d) and 7(1)(a) of the Immoral Traffic Act, 1956, Sections 465 and 468 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), as well as Section 14-A read with Section 3(2)(a) of the Foreigners Act, 1946.

2. In order to substantiate their case before the Trial Court, the prosecution had examined 11 witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.11 and marked 9 documentary evidences Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9, apart from 38 material objects M.O.1 to M.O.38. On the side of the accused, no witnesses or documents were marked.

3. On the strength of the oral and documentary evidences, the Mahila Court, Cuddalore, through its judgment dated 26.03.2024 passed in S.C.No.234 of 2021, had found the accused guilty for the following offences and convicted them as follows:-

4. All the aforesaid sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

The said judgment of the Trial Court is challenged in this appeal, predominantly to establish the offences under the Immoral Traffic Act.

5. Mr.A.Damodaran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State, submitted that P.W.2, during the cross examination, had testified that A6 and A7 had escaped during the raid conducted by them on 03.07.2021, which was witnessed by P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4. In view of the confirmation of the presence of A6 and A7 at the brothal house, he submitted that the Trial Court ought to have convicted these accused. It is his further submission that P.W.3 was an eye witness to the incident and his testimony is cogent with regard to the raid conducted by the Police.

6. Per contra, Mrs.N.Premalatha, learned counsel appearing for A6 and A7/4^th and 5^th respondents herein, submitted that no independent witnesses were examined by the prosecution to establish the charges. According to her, among the 11 witnesses, P.W.1 to P.W.7 and P.W.11 are all Police officials. The only independent witnesses, namely P.W.8 to P.W.10, were mahazar witnesses, who neither knew about the incident nor the identity of the accused. It is her further submission that P.W.11/Investigation Officer had admitted of a previous motive when he conducted a raid and seized material objects from the beauty parlour, owing to which A6 had given a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore, based on which, the Investigation Officer was directed to return the seized articles. Since the Investigation Officer had admitted this occurrence during the cross examination, the learned counsel submitted that the entire investigation is clouded with motive and these accused were innocent and were unnecessarily roped in. By referring to the oral evidences of P.W.8 to P.W.10, she submitted that since none of them knew about the incident nor the identity of the accused, they do not lend any help to substantiate the charge and it would be highly unsafe to place reliance on the evidences of other Police officials alone and record their guilt.

7. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made on either side.

8. As pointed out by the learned counsel fo