Back
1981 Supreme(Ori) 168
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
J.K. Mohanty, J.
STATE OF ORISSA - APPELLANT
Versus
GOBINDA PRADHAN AND OTHERS - RESPONDENT
Government Appeal No. 4 of 1978
Decided On : 01-09-1981
Additional Government Advocate, for the Appellant; S.K. Mohanty, for the Respondent
The importance of evidence and surrounding circumstances in proving offenses related to prostitution and the use of a place as a brothel.
Headnote:
Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act - Prostitution - 7(1), 4(1) (2), 8, 3(1), 5(1) - The court discussed the definitions of 'prostitute' and 'prostitution' under the Act, the requirement of evidence for proving prostitution, and the circumstances necessary to establish a place as a brothel. The court also referred to a previous case to highlight the importance of surrounding circumstances in determining the use of a place as a brothel.
Fact of the Case:
The accused were charged under the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act for various offenses related to prostitution. The prosecution's case was based on the evidence of police witnesses, but the court found that the prosecution failed to establish the necessary ingredients for the offenses.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the offenses under the Act and upheld the acquittal of the accused.
Issues: The main issue was whether the prosecution had provided sufficient evidence to establish the offenses under the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of evidence and surrounding circumstances in proving prostitution and the use of a place as a brothel.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal of the accused was upheld.
JUDGMENT :
J.K. Mohanty, J. - Respondent No. 1 Gobinda Pradhan and two women, viz., Respondent No. 2 Bahidei Hantala and Respondent No. 3 Phulmati Nag stand charged u/s 7(1) of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for carrying on prostitution in a public place. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were further charged under Sections 4(1) (2) and 8 of the Act for living on the earnings of prostitution and for seducing and soliciting for purposes of prostitution. Respondent No. 4 Gada Sagar was prosecuted for having committed offences u/s 3(1) of the Act for keeping and maintaining a brothel, u/s 4(1) of the Act for living on the earnings of prostitution, and u/s 5(1) of the Act for procuring women/girls for the sake of prostitution.
2. The case of the prosecution briefly stated is as follows: The sub-Inspector of Police Dandapani Patnaik (P.W. 7) lodged a written report before the then Officer in-charge of Jeypore police station on 4-10-1975 to the effect that accused Respondent No. 4 Gada Sagar was keeping a brothel at Narayantota Sahi at Jeypore by procuring females from outside and he and the females engaged by him were living entirely on the earnings of the prostitution. According to the prosecution Narayantota Sahi is a public place and prostitution is carried on openly and the prostitutes tempt and attract the passers by, by gestures and exposures of their body. Public religious places of worship like Hanuman temple, Gurudwar are situated within a distance of fifty yards from the house of Respondent No. 4. The report of the Sub-Inspector was treated as first information report and has been marked as Ext. 1. As the Officer-in-charge of the police station had no power to investigate into the offence, the Deputy Inspector of Police (P.W. 4) took up investigation and in the night of occurrence the house of Respondent No. 4 was raided and it was found that Respondent No. 1 Gobinda Pradhan was in a compromising position with Respondent No. 3 Dhulmati and Respondent No. 2 Bahidei was found in a compromising position with one Hari Bag and they were naked at that time. It is the prosecution case that the house belongs to Respondent No. 4 Gada Sagar and he was maintaining a brothel, allowing his premises to be used as brothel living on the earnings of prostitution and was procuring/inducing women/girls for the sake of prostitution. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons and all the four accused persons were tried in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jeypore who acquitted all the accused-Respondents.
The plea of Respondents 1 to 3 was denial, Accused Respondent Gada Sagar took the plea of alibi.
3. In order to prove the case prosecution examined seven witnesses. P.W. 1 is the Circle Inspector of Police, P.W. 4 is the D.S.P. who took up investigation, P.W. 5 is the neighbour of accused Gada Sagar, P.W. 6 is the Officer-in-charge of Jeypore police station, P.W. 7 is the S.I. of Police and P.Ws. 2 and 3 are Members of the locality. P. Ws. 2 and 3 did not support the prosecution case and they were declared hostile and were cross examined by the prosecution. P.W. 5 who is an independent witness also did not support the prosecution case at all. The entire prosecution case depends on the evidence of the police witnesses. The learned Magistrate has held that the prosecution has not been able to prove that there are places of public religious worship within a radius of 200 yards from the house of Respondent No. 4 where the alleged prostitution had taken place. He further held that the ingredients to constitute offences under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the Act have not been established in this case. It may be mentioned here that the case so far as accused Hari Bag, who was found with Respondent No. 2 in a compromising position, is concerned was split up and the case proceeded against the four accused-Respondents. Mr. Mohanty, learned Counse
