Woman is prostitute need not be proved by direct evidence
Here is indeed sufficient evidence on record which enabled the Magistrate to come to the definite conclusion that the revision petitioner is a prostitute and that she was running a brothel in the house belonging to the respondent. It consists of sworn testimony of P. Ws. 1, 2 and 3. It is however contended that it is not conclusive, being the evidence of indirect nature. We cannot accept this contention. Matters like these need not necessarily be proved by direct evidence, i.e., by the testimony of persons who had direct dealings with the woman. It is however necessary that the evidence adduced should be of a clear and convincing nature. P. W. 1 has stated clearly that the petitioner herein is carrying on trade on prostitution in a portion of his house; that there is no male member living in that house with her and that persons visit her and they are her customers. P. W. 2 says
"I have very often seen the respondent "(i.e. the revision petitioner)" and other girls bargaining with them the rates for the night prostitution.".
P. W. 3 says :
"I see the respondent every evening soliciting men for prostitution. Men come to her portion and call her by her name and ask her how much she wants for a night sleep with her or other girls in the house. In fact they settle the rate in public street. Some decent men go into the house and talk to the respondent inside. All types of men come there."
It is not easy to see how this evidence which is clear and categorical does not positively establish a case against the petitioner that she is living in prostitution. The Court below, was, therefore, right in holding that the petitioner was a prostitute, was running a brothel and was polluting the moral atmosphere of the locality, warranting an action under Section 20 of the Act requiring her to remove herself from the place.
Andhra High Court
Vanga Seetharamamma vs Chitta Sambasiva Rao And Anr. on 19 February, 1963
Equivalent citations: AIR 1964 AP 400, 1964 CriLJ 264
