Child Trafficking & Sexual Exploitation Strike At Very Foundation Of State’s Constitutional Promise: Supreme Court Lays Down Parameters To Assess Victim’s Evidence

The Apex Court was considering an appeal challenging the conviction of a man and his wife under the IPC & Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

The Division Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Joymalya Bagchi stated, “The instant case lays bare the deeply disturbing reality of child trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation in India, an offence that strikes at the very foundations of dignity, bodily integrity and the State’s constitutional promise of protection to every child against exploitation leading to moral and material abandonment. The facts before us are not isolated aberrations but form part of a wider and entrenched pattern of organised exploitation that continues to flourish despite legislative safeguards.”

Advocate Ashwin V. Kotemath represented the Appellant, while Additional Advocate General Aman Panwar represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The case dates back to the year 2010 when the complainant received information from NGO workers that minor girls were being kept for prostitution at a rented house in Bangalore. After obtaining the requisite verbal permission from senior officers, the complainant, along with the raiding party, proceeded to the spot. An associate of the NGO worker, Jaikar, was sent to the premises as a decoy with another witness. Jaikar offered money to the appellant for having sex with the minor victim who was in the house. After handing over the money, the complainant, along with other officers and the NGO workers rescued the minor victim. Upon search, the currency notes handed over to the appellant were recovered. A mobile phone and Rs 620 were seized from the appellant’s wife.

An FIR came to be lodged against the appellant and his wife under sections 366A, 372, 373 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 9 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. A charge sheet was filed, and the case was taken up for trial. The Trial Court observed that the ingredients of the charged offences had been proved and convicted the appellants. The High Court, in appeal, found no mitigating circumstances warranting any reduction of sentence. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and High Court, the appellant approached the Apex Court.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that both the Trial Court and High Court correctly appreciated the evidence of the minor trafficked victim, considering the need for sensitivity and latitude while appreciating the evidence of minor victims of sex trafficking and prostitution.

The Bench also enumerated the following parameters, which the Court should consider while appreciating the evidence of a minor victim of trafficking:

• Her inherent socio-economic and, at times, cultural vulnerability when the minor belongs to a marginalised or socially and culturally backward community.
• Complex and layered structure of organised crime networks which operate at various levels of recruiting, transporting, harbouring and exploiting minor victims.
• Judicial appreciation of the victim’s evidence must be marked by sensitivity and realism.
• If on such nuanced appreciation, the version of the victim appears to be credible and convincing, a conviction may be maintained on her sole testimony.

“A victim of sex trafficking, particularly a minor, is not an accomplice and her deposition is to be given due regard and credence as that of an injured witness”, the order read.

Coming to the facts, the Bench noted that the decoy clearly proved that the appellant had received money in lieu of permitting him to engage in sexual intercourse with the minor victim in the apartment in question. As per the Bench, his version was corroborated by an independent witness. Cash and other incriminating articles were recovered from the spot. “The evidence on record clearly proves beyond doubt that A1 & A2 were using the premises for prostitution by sexually exploiting the minor victim, PW-13, for commercial purposes, and thereby committed offences u/s. 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the ITPA in addition to the offences under the Penal Code”, it held.

The Bench also noticed that the age of the victim on the date of the incident had been proved as 16 years and 6 months. One of the arguments raised before the Bench was that the prosecution, under the special law, must fail as the search and recovery of the minor was conducted in violation of Section 15(2) of the ITPA. On this aspect, the Bench explained that this provision enjoins that, at the time of search under the special law, the police officer shall call upon two or more respectable inhabitants of the locality, including a woman (who may not be a member of the locality) to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to such persons to do so. “The provision is akin to S.100 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19736 which requires search to be conducted in presence of two or more respectable members of the locality”, it added.

The Bench made it clear that the search was undertaken in presence of the decoy and another witness who accompanied him. The Bench stated that they are respectable and independent persons residing in the same city, who had joined the search. Nothing was brought on record to show that they were pocket witnesses who had deposed for the police in other cases. It was further noticed that the wife of the owner of the premises had also been requested to witness the search but she turned hostile.However, during cross-examination, the prosecution confronted her with her earlier statement, wherein it was noted that she had requested the police to undertake the search. “In this factual background, we are of the view that statutory requirements u/s. 15(2) were substantially complied with and the conviction cannot be doubted on such score”, it held.

Thus, the Bench dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction awarded by the High Court.

Cause Title: K.P. Kirankumar @ Kiran v. State by Peenya Police (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1473)

Appellant: Advocate Ashwin V. Kotemath, AOR Harisha S.R.

Respondent: Additional Advocate General Aman Panwar, AOR Sanchit Garga, Advocates Kunal Rana, Shashwat Jaiswal, Manav Kaushik, Abhinav Kumar, Diksha Arora, Bhanu Pratap Singh

Click here to read/download Judgment