Acquittal upheld where prosecution failed to examine independent panchas and dummy customer in immoral trafficking raid.

The State of Gujarat appealed against the judgment dated 25.11.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad, which acquitted the respondents of charges under Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the Suppression of Immoral Trafficking in Women and Girls Act

The prosecution alleged that the accused were caught red-handed using an apartment at Viratnagar Chaar Rasta for immoral trafficking involving two women, Nurjahan Ibrahim Ansari and Pinki Ghosh

A raid was conducted following a tip-off, involving a dummy customer who was provided marked currency notes

However, during the trial, out of four witnesses examined, three were police personnel and the only independent panch witness turned hostile

1. Whether the trial court erred in concluding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt despite the evidence of police witnesses

2. Whether there was sufficient evidence to establish that the accused were conducting or permitting immoral trafficking at the premises in question

3. Whether the High Court should interfere with an order of acquittal based on a possible view taken by the trial court

The court applied Sections 4 through 8 of the Suppression of Immoral Trafficking in Women and Girls Act regarding the management of brothels and living on the earnings of prostitution

Procedurally, the court relied on Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, governing appeals against acquittal

The court emphasized the "presumption of innocence," which is reinforced upon acquittal, as established in *Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka*, holding that if two reasonable views exist, the appellate court should not disturb the acquittal

It further cited *State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy* regarding the appellate court’s duty when agreeing with the trial court

and *Constable 907 Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand*, which limits interference to cases of "patent perversity" or misreading of material evidence

The High Court observed significant evidentiary gaps in the prosecution's case. Specifically, the prosecution failed to examine crucial witnesses, including the second panch witness (Radhaben), the lady constable who searched the women, and the dummy customer (Mehboobbhai)

The court noted that the raid panchnama was not legally proved because the appearing panch witness (P.W. 2) turned hostile

Furthermore, there were material contradictions in the recorded timings of the raid and an absence of proof that Accused No. 1 owned or possessed the premises

The court reasoned that since the place of the alleged offence was located in a high-traffic area and there were no prior complaints of such activities, the lack of independent corroboration made the prosecution's narrative unreliable

Following the principles of *Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana*, the court held that the trial court’s view was plausible and could not be "demolished"

The court confirmed that the trial court’s findings were neither perverse nor based on a misreading of evidence

Consequently, the double presumption of innocence in favor of the accused was upheld.

The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of acquittal dated 25.11.2009 was confirmed