Luring Minor Under False Identity & Fake Promise Of Love To Sell Her To Brothel Shows Deceitful Intent U/S 366 IPC: Gauhati High Court
The Bench noted that a date of birth certificate issued under 1969 Act presumed genuine under Section 79 Evidence Act to prove victim's age under POCSO Act; affirmed conviction in sex trafficking case.
The Gauhati High Court has held that deceiving a minor girl by adopting a false identity and making a false promise of love to induce her to elope, only to sell her to a brothel, conclusively proves the illegal intention to force her into prostitution under Section 366 IPC.
The Court further held that a birth certificate issued under Section 12 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (1969 Act) carries a presumption of correctness under Section 79 of the Evidence Act to establish the age of a minor under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act).
While dismissing appeals filed by the two convicts, Jahanuddin Sk (who impersonated a Hindu named "Raju Das") and Salma Begum (a brothel operator in Siliguri, West Bengal), the Bench upheld their conviction and 20-year rigorous imprisonment awarded by the Special Judge (POCSO), Kokrajhar.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Michael Zothankhuma and Justice Sanjeev Kumar Sharma observed, “The evidence recorded by the learned Trial Court goes to show that the victim was in love with Jahanuddin and that they had eloped. However, Jahanuddin had sold the victim to a brothel owner, the appellant Salma Begum, thereby showing that there was no love for the victim on the part of the appellant Jahanuddin. Further, the fact that the appellant Jahanuddin had by a false promise of love and affection induced the victim to elope with him, by telling the victim that his name was Raju Das, a Hindu boy. This deception by Jahanuddin on the victim girl clearly shows the illegal intention of the appellant Jahanuddin, to lure a minor girl into the prostitution, by falsely promising marriage on the ground of being in love with the minor victim”.
Advocate S. Biswas appeared for the appellant and R.R. Kaushik, Additional P.P. appeared for the respondent.
The case arose from an FIR lodged on July 31, 2020, at Serfanguri Police Station, Assam. Accused Jahanuddin Sk enticed the minor victim under the pretext of a court marriage, took her to Siliguri, and sold her to Salma Begum for ₹500 and other consideration.
The victim was kept in a brothel in the Khalpara red-light area and subjected to forced sexual assault by multiple customers before being rescued by a joint police team on August 4, 2020.
The Special Judge (POCSO), Kokrajhar, convicted Jahanuddin Sk under Sections 366, 370, 370(A), 372, and 419 IPC, Section 6 read with Section 17 of the POCSO Act, and Section 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. Co-accused Salma Begum was convicted under Sections 370, 370(A), and 372 IPC, Section 6 read with Section 17 of the POCSO Act, and Sections 3, 4, and 6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. The Trial Court sentenced both convicts to maximum terms of 20 years of rigorous imprisonment each, along with fines, holding them jointly responsible for the trafficking, detention, and aggravated sexual exploitation of the minor victim.
Upholding the findings of the Trial Court, the High Court held:
-Deception and Criminal Intent: The fact that Jahanuddin adopted a fake name (Raju Das) and promised marriage showed there was no genuine affection. Inducing the minor girl under a false promise of love to elope and selling her to a brothel owner clearly established his deceitful intention to force her into illicit intercourse, satisfying the requirements of Section 366 IPC and abetment under Section 6/17 of the POCSO Act.
Admissibility of 1969 Act Birth Certificates: Referring to Saiful Islam v. State of Assam & Another, (Criminal Appeal No.126/2023), the Court held that entries in birth registers maintained under the 1969 Act carry a presumption of correctness under Section 79 of the Evidence Act. A certified birth certificate issued thereunder constitutes substantive proof of age under Section 94 of the JJ Act.
-Absence of Injury Marks: The Court reiterated the settled legal principle that the absence of visible physical injury marks on the victim's body does not disprove rape or sexual assault, especially when medical evidence confirms recent multiple penetrative sexual acts.
The Court accordingly dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentences passed by the Trial Court.
Case Details: Jahanuddin Sk @ Ali Jiban @ Raju Das v. The State of Assam & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026:GAU-AS:9594- DB)
Appearances:
Appellant: S. Biswas and M. Khan, Advocates.
Respondents: R.R. Kaushik, Addl. P.P., S. Sharma, Amicus Curiae.