The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by two persons convicted for procuring and exploiting a minor girl in prostitution. The Court upheld the concurrent convictions and sentences imposed by the Trial Court and Karnataka High Court on the Appellants.
On 22 November 2010, NGO workers informed Peenya Police Station about minor girls held for prostitution at the Appellants’ rented house in Bangalore. The police sent two decoys who approached the Appellants and paid for sex with the minor victim. The police raided the premises and rescued the minor victim, aged 16 years and 6 months per school certificate. The victim stated that strangers trafficked her to the Appellants. The Appellants forced her into prostitution at their premises and another location. The raid recovered marked currency, a mobile phone, Rs. 620, and a condom.
The Trial Court convicted the Appellants on 25 July 2013 after having examined 16 prosecution witnesses. The Karnataka High Court dismissed a subsequent appeal and confirmed the conviction after re-appreciating the evidence. The Appellants then filed the present SLP before the Supreme Court.
The Appellants argued that the victim’s testimony was unreliable due to embellishments and contradictions. They also claimed that the raid lacked two local respectable witnesses under Section 15(2) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
The Bench comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Manoj Misra noted the complex layers of trafficking networks and the victim’s vulnerability. It held the victim’s testimony as credible and sufficiently corroborated by decoy PW-8, informant PW-11, independent witness PW-12, raid recovery, and house owner PW-15. Minor contradictions did not undermine the prosecution case.
The Court remarked that raid irregularities under Section 15(2) ITPA did not vitiate the trial, and found that the raid was substantially compliant with the decoys qualifying as independent witnesses present.
The High Court laid down important guidelines for appreciating the testimony of minor victims of trafficking. It emphasised that courts must remain conscious of the social, economic and cultural vulnerability of minor victims, particularly those from marginalised communities. The Court noted that trafficking operates through layered and concealed organised networks, making it unrealistic to expect victims to clearly explain every stage of recruitment, transportation and exploitation. Additionally, delayed resistance or absence of immediate protest cannot, by itself, render a victim’s account improbable.
The Court further highlighted that recounting sexual exploitation causes secondary victimisation, especially for minors facing threats, stigma and lack of rehabilitation, requiring courts to adopt a sensitive and realistic approach. If, upon such appreciation, the victim’s testimony is found credible, conviction can be sustained on her sole evidence, as a minor trafficking victim is not an accomplice but stands on the footing of an injured witness.
The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions under Sections 366A, 372, 373 read with 34 IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 ITPA.
Cases relied on:
1. State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh and Others, (1996) 2 SCC 384
2. Bai Radha v. State of Gujarat, (1969) 1 SCC 43
3. State (UT of Delhi) v. Ram Singh, (1962) 2 SCR 694
4. Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC 263
