'Child Trafficking Deeply Disturbing, Victim’s Deposition Be Given Due Regard,' SC Upholds Conviction Of Bengaluru Man

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday said child trafficking is deeply disturbing and stressed that 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.

A bench comprising justices Manoj Misra and Joymalya Bagchi said: “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 bench said the facts before it are not isolated aberrations but form part of a wider and entrenched pattern of organised exploitation that continues to flourish despite legislative safeguards.

The apex court said 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 bench upheld the conviction of K P Kirankumar alias Kiran, a man from Bengaluru, saying the version of the victim appears to be credible and convincing, and a conviction may be maintained on her sole testimony.

The bench said the minor's version is also corroborated by other evidence on record, and an NGO worker had intimated the police with regard to prostitution being carried out by the appellant in his rented premises. The bench said police also recovered cash received by the appellant, along with other incriminating articles, namely, a condom, etc.

The apex court said while appreciating the evidence of a minor victim of trafficking, the court ought to bear in mind her inherent socio-economic and, at times, cultural vulnerability when the minor belonged to a marginalised or socially and culturally backward community.

“Recounting and narration of the horrible spectre of sexual exploitation even before law enforcement agencies and the court is an unpalatable experience leading to secondary victimisation”, it said.

The bench said this is more acute when the victim is a minor and is faced with threats of criminal intimidation, fear of retaliation, social stigma and paucity of social and economic rehabilitation, and in this backdrop, judicial appreciation of the victim’s evidence must be marked by sensitivity and realism.

The bench said the court should consider the complex and layered structure of organised crime networks which operated at various levels of recruiting, transporting, harbouring and exploiting minor victims.

“Such organised crime activities operate as apparently independent verticals whose insidious intersections are conveniently veiled through subterfuges and deception to hoodwink innocent victims. Failure to promptly protest against ostensibly innocuous yet ominous agenda of the trafficker ought not to be treated as a ground to discard a victim’s version as improbable or against ordinary human conduct,” the court said.

The apex court said the victim's testimony was most credible and established that the accused had procured her for sexual exploitation and utilised her for such immoral purposes.

In November 2010, the police deployed a decoy customer and rescued the 16-year-old girl from a rented premises in Bengaluru in a raid.

The bench noted that the prosecution's case primarily hinges on the version of the victim. Driven by abject poverty, the victim left her residence seeking respectful employment. Taking advantage of such economic vulnerability, four unknown persons brought her to the appellant’s house. In her presence, the appellant made telephone calls to sexually exploit the victim. Pursuant to such negotiation, some persons came to the house and the victim was asked to have sex with them, which she refused. Thereupon, the accused compelled her to accompany one Naveen, who took her to another place where she was sexually exploited. Thereafter, she was brought back to the appellant’s rented apartment, where she had to satisfy the lust of various customers.

“The courts below rightly rebutted such contentions, holding that the contradictions are minor and the victim’s version has been substantially corroborated by other evidence on record. We are of the view that both the trial court and the high court have 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”, said the bench.

The apex court said: "We uphold the conviction and sentence awarded by the high court and dismiss the appeal".