Offence Does Not Become Lesser Just Because Victim Is An Illegal Immigrant: Bombay High Court Upholds Conviction In Immoral Traffic Case
The Court held that it must not allow “a human being to disappear behind the labels such as 'illegal immigrant', 'sex worker', or 'rescued woman'"; noted that NGO workers in brothel raids cannot be branded interested witnesses; dismissed revision against ITPA conviction.
The Bombay High Court has rejected an argument that a victim's alleged status as an illegal immigrant should weaken the case against the person accused of exploiting her. The Court said the law cannot permit an immigration label to become a licence for indignity. What matters, it held, is not whether the victim has a valid immigration document, but whether the accused committed the offence.
Dismissing a revision against concurrent convictions under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, the Bench held that a victim's status as an illegal immigrant, assuming her to be so, does not make the offence any lesser. The Court also held that NGO workers who act as complainant and decoy in brothel raids cannot be branded interested witnesses, since independent witnesses from the locality will not be available in such cases. It declined to reappreciate the evidence in revision, upheld the conviction of the brothel manager, cancelled her bail bond and gave her four weeks to surrender.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice M.M. Sathaye observed, “The law cannot permit an immigration label to become a licence for indignity. Constant judgment can make us lose sight of the person before the Court. The issue therefore is not whether the victim possesses a valid immigration document; the issue is whether the Accused has committed the offence involving a human being. The Court must not allow a human being to disappear behind the labels such as ‘illegal immigrant’, ‘sex worker’, or ‘rescued woman’. Each label may have its own legal consequence, but none extinguishes dignity of a victim and protection from trafficking. In that view of the matter, the said argument has no merit and it is rejected”.
“First of all, it is important to note that the argument about PW1 victim being Bangladeshi or illegal immigrant and extended argument that therefore Revision Applicant (Indian citizen) should not be punished, is completely misconceived and is based on a convoluted idea about prosecution. Just because the victim is an illegal immigrant, the offence does not become any lesser. To say that at the instance of a victim like PW-1, Revision Applicant should not be prosecuted or convicted, completely ignores the fact that PW-1 victim is also a human being. This is nothing but victim shaming. Such argument must be rejected at the threshold...”, it categorically noted.
Advocate Prabhanjay R. Dave appeared for the applicant Manisha R. Tidke, APP appeared for the respondent.
“…When an offence is committed, the effort under criminal law is to prosecute and punish the perpetrator. The effort can never be and should not be to shame the victim. Such argument clearly indicates cognitive bias. Just because a victim is an illegal immigrant (assuming her to be so), the Court cannot consider it as a reason for not convicting the perpetrator. Being illegal immigrant will have its own legal consequences, no doubt. But that will not make the offence any lesser”, the Bench strongly noted.
According to the prosecution, on February 17, 2011 the Rescue Foundation informed D.B. Marg Police Station that girls were being detained for prostitution in rooms on the first floor of Krishna Building, Pavwala Street, Grant Road, Mumbai.
A police team, panchas and a decoy customer raided the premises. The applicant, Rani Pratap Singh, said she was the manager. The marked Rs. 500 note given to the decoy was recovered from her, and two girls told police that their earnings were shared with her.
The Metropolitan Magistrate, Special Court for ITPA, Mazgaon, convicted her on Fenruary 07, 2014 under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Act. She was sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment under Sections 3 and 4 and three years under Sections 5 and 6, to run concurrently. The Additional Sessions Judge dismissed her appeal on October 05, 2015. The High Court admitted her revision on October 09, 2015 and suspended the sentence.
The Court noted that the Supreme Court in Prajwala v. Union of India 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1053 recognised that the ITPA was brought to punish perpetrators and not the prostitutes. It held that the issue was not whether the victim held a valid immigration document, but whether the accused committed the offence. It found that the Investigating Officer was duly authorised under the proviso to Section 14, by an office order of February 14, 2011 from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, who is a Special Police Officer.
Cause Title: Rani Pratap Singh v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Revision Application No. 461 of 2015.
Appearances:
Applicant: Prabhanjay R. Dave with Shankar Ambhure, Advocates.
Respondent: Manisha R. Tidke, APP, Deepak Hol, Investigating Officer.