“CHILD TRAFFICKING A GRAVE SOCIAL MENACE”: SUPREME COURT FRAMES STANDARDS FOR ASSESSING VICTIM EVIDENCE:

The Supreme Court has described child trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation as a deeply disturbing and persistent reality in India and has laid down detailed guidelines on how courts should assess the evidence of minor victims in such cases. The guidelines were issued by a Bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Joymalya Bagchi while upholding the conviction of a man and his wife from Bengaluru for trafficking and sexually exploiting a minor girl. The Court affirmed the findings of the Trial Court and the Karnataka High Court under the Indian Penal Code and the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, emphasising the need for a sensitive, realistic, and victim-centric approach in judicial evaluation.

Writing for the Bench, Justice Bagchi observed that cases of child trafficking are not isolated incidents but part of entrenched and organised criminal networks that continue to operate despite existing legal safeguards. The Court noted that judicial scrutiny in such matters must move away from rigid or hyper-technical standards and instead account for the lived realities of minor victims. It stressed that courts should not discard a child victim’s testimony merely due to minor inconsistencies or perceived deviations from stereotypical notions of human behaviour.

The Court laid down guiding principles for appreciating the evidence of minor victims of trafficking and prostitution. It held that courts must remain conscious of the socio-economic and cultural vulnerabilities of children, particularly those from marginalised communities. It further recognised that organised trafficking networks operate through complex and layered structures involving recruitment, transportation, harbouring, and exploitation, often disguised through deception and subterfuge. Due to the fragmented and covert nature of these operations, a minor victim may find it difficult to narrate events with precision or explain the interconnectedness of the criminal processes involved. The Court clarified that a failure to raise an immediate protest or alarm against the trafficker should not be treated as improbable conduct or a ground to doubt the victim’s credibility.

The Bench also highlighted that recounting experiences of sexual exploitation before law enforcement agencies and courts is itself a traumatic process that often leads to secondary victimisation. This trauma is aggravated when the victim is a minor facing threats, fear of retaliation, social stigma, and limited access to rehabilitation. In this context, the Court held that judicial appreciation of evidence must be guided by sensitivity and realism. Where, upon such nuanced appreciation, the testimony of the victim is found to be credible and convincing, a conviction can be sustained even on her sole testimony. The Court reiterated that a minor victim of sex trafficking is not an accomplice and her evidence must be treated on par with that of an injured witness.

The case arose from a police raid conducted in November 2010 at a rented house in Peenya, Bengaluru, following information received from NGO workers that a minor girl was being forced into prostitution. A decoy operation led to the rescue of the victim and recovery of cash and incriminating material. The victim testified that she had been forcibly brought, confined, and sexually exploited for commercial purposes. Her testimony was corroborated by NGO workers, the decoy witness, independent witnesses, and material evidence. The Trial Court convicted the accused in 2013, and the High Court dismissed their appeal in February 2025.

Before the Supreme Court, the accused challenged the conviction on grounds of alleged inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony, discrepancies regarding the premises, and procedural lapses during the search. Rejecting these arguments, the Court held that the inconsistencies were minor and inconsequential, and that procedural deviations, if any, did not result in a failure of justice. The Court also reaffirmed that a minor’s age should ordinarily be determined through school records, as laid down in Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana, with medical tests being only a secondary option. Upholding the conviction and sentence, the Supreme Court reiterated that courts bear a special responsibility to protect the dignity and rights of child victims of sexual exploitation.