The Supreme Court held that both trial court and the high court correctly considered the evidence of the minor trafficked victim.
The Supreme Court has upheld the conviction of a man and his wife in a case where a minor girl was trafficked and sexually exploited while highlighting the “deeply disturbing reality” of child trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation in India.
A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Joymalya Bagchi observed that the cases were “not isolated aberrations” but formed part of a wider and entrenched pattern of organised exploitation that continues to flourish despite legislative safeguards.
“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 order read.
The complainant had received information from NGO workers that minor girls were being kept for sex work at a rented house. Upon raiding the spot, the minor survivor was rescued, and a cell phone and cash were recovered from the wife.
The trial court convicted the couple under Sections 366A (procuration of minor girl), 373 (buying minor for prostitution), 34 (common intention) IPC read with various sections of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, (ITPA) 1956. The appeal before the high court was dismissed.
The Supreme Court held that both trial court and the high court correctly considered 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 court further underscored certain crucial indicators in such cases.
The court observed that the minor victim’s testimony is credible and had established that the man and his wife had procured her for sexual exploitation.
The court further noted that the statutory requirements under Sections 15(2) of ITPA which provides for search operations were substantially complied with and the conviction could not be doubted on such score.
The court therefore upheld the conviction of the man and his wife and dismissed the appeal.
