The Calcutta High Court has held that where a minor girl is taken away from the lawful custody of her guardians without consent, transported through deceitful means, and thereafter sold for sexual exploitation, the offences of kidnapping, abduction-related trafficking conduct, gang rape, and the relevant offences under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act stand clearly attracted. The Court reaffirmed that in sexual assault and trafficking cases, conviction can be sustained on the sole testimony of the victim if it inspires confidence, and minor improvements in her version caused by trauma or gradual recovery do not by themselves demolish the prosecution case.
The Court also held that even if the victim was initially acquainted with one accused or may have first travelled with him willingly, that circumstance does not neutralise the later criminal conduct of deception, trafficking, sale to brothels, and repeated sexual assault. The real test was the intention and conduct of the accused, and on the facts, the Court found that the victim had been taken and exploited for commercial sexual abuse.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Rajasekhar Mantha and Justice Rai Chattopadhyay observed that the victim was a minor at the relevant time. Since there was no evidence showing that she was a major, the Court treated her as being under the lawful custody of her parents. The Court observed that taking a minor girl from place to place without the consent of her natural guardians was sufficient to attract the offences relating to kidnapping and abduction under the IPC.
The defence had argued that the victim’s story was unreliable because she did not raise alarm while travelling from Diamond Harbour to Howrah, then to Delhi, Jaipur and Gandhidham, and that she had voluntarily gone with the accused. The Court rejected this submission. It noted that the victim had specifically said she was given tea by the accused at Howrah station, became unconscious, and woke up only in Delhi. According to the Court, this showed use of deceitful means to keep her under the control of the accused.
The Court further observed that the victim was first sold to a brothel in Jaipur for a week and then taken again for exploitation in Gandhidham. This, according to the Court, clearly established that the accused had abducted her for the purpose of trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation. The Court also noted that even if the victim may initially have wanted to elope with Nazim Sk., that would not erase the later criminal acts of trafficking and sale into prostitution.
On the charge under Section 376D IPC, the Court accepted the victim’s statement that the appellants raped her in Delhi by turns. The Court found her testimony believable and held that the sole evidence of the victim was sufficient to sustain a conviction for gang rape, especially when her narration fit into the chain of events and surrounding circumstances proved by the prosecution.
As to the defence argument that the victim kept changing her version between her Section 164 CrPC statement, the first trial and the second trial, the Court held that these were not fatal contradictions. It emphasised the traumatic psychological condition of trafficking victims and noted that such victims often disclose details gradually. The Court treated the later additions in her testimony as improvements arising from better psychological recovery, not as contradictions that destroyed the prosecution case.
The Court also found that the telephonic call, although initially projected as coming from Delhi, was proved through call detail records to have originated from Gandhidham, and this ultimately became the trigger for tracing the victim. It held that any defect in the investigation regarding the exact manner of Ramjan Molla’s arrest was not material enough to discredit the prosecution case, since his involvement stood otherwise proved on the evidence.
Briefly, the criminal appeals arose from a sessions trial in which the appellants had been convicted for kidnapping, inducing and taking away a minor girl, trafficking her for sexual exploitation, gang rape, and offences under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. The trial court had sentenced them to multiple terms of rigorous imprisonment, including 20 years under Section 376D IPC, with all sentences directed to run concurrently. One of the appellants, Nizam Molla, had claimed to be a minor, but no conclusive school or local authority evidence was produced, and after an ossification test ordered later, he was treated as a major.
The prosecution case was that the victim girl, about 17 years old, left her home on 25 March 2013 to visit her brother at Kalyanpur and told her sister-in-law that she was going to Diamond Harbour to buy an “orna”. She never returned. Her family searched for her and, about 15 days later, her father received a telephone call from a person identifying himself as Pintu, who claimed that he had rescued the victim from sex trafficking and gave an address said to be in Delhi. When police checked further, they found that the call had actually originated from Gandhidham, Gujarat.
A police team from Mograhat, along with the victim’s paternal uncle, went to Gandhidham with the help of local police. The victim was found in a red-light area there along with two of the accused, and Ramjan Molla @ Pintu was also present and allegedly tried to drag her away before escaping. The victim was rescued, two accused were arrested there, brought back on transit remand, and the FIR was registered. Later, after Ramjan Molla was apprehended, a second trial was also conducted and prosecution witnesses were examined again.
The victim stated that she knew one of the accused and had initially left with him. At Diamond Harbour, other accused joined them. She said she was given a cold drink and sweet, became half-conscious, was taken to Howrah station, given tea, lost consciousness, and later woke up in Delhi. From Delhi, she was taken to Jaipur and sold to a brothel for a week, where she was sexually exploited by several men. She further stated that she was then brought back to Delhi, assaulted when she protested, taken to Gandhidham, and ultimately rescued from there.
