Supreme Court Rejects Defence Plea, Upholds Conviction in Child Trafficking Case

The Supreme Court has delivered a strong message on how courts must assess the testimony of minor victims of sexual exploitation, ruling that minor inconsistencies in a child’s statement cannot be grounds to disbelieve her. The Court emphasized that forcing a child to repeatedly recall traumatic experiences only deepens her suffering.

A Bench comprising Justice Manoj Mishra and Justice Joymalya Bagchi upheld the conviction of members of a human trafficking racket involved in the forced sexual exploitation of a minor girl in Bengaluru, dismissing the appeal filed by the accused under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act (ITPA).

Defence Arguments Rejected

The defence had challenged the prosecution case on multiple grounds, including alleged contradictions in the victim’s testimony. It was argued that while the minor claimed before the trial court that she bled after being forcibly subjected to sexual intercourse, this detail was absent from her earlier statement recorded by a magistrate. The defence also pointed to discrepancies regarding the description of the crime scene and alleged procedural lapses during the search and rescue operation.

Rejecting these submissions, the Supreme Court held that expecting a child victim of sexual trafficking to narrate every detail with precision and consistency is unrealistic and unjust.

Child Trafficking a Grave Constitutional Assault

The Court expressed grave concern over the prevalence of child trafficking in India, calling it one of the most horrific forms of modern-day slavery. It noted that despite protective laws, organized criminal networks continue to exploit children through recruitment, transportation, harbouring, and repeated sexual abuse.

“Child trafficking strikes at the very foundation of human dignity, bodily integrity, and the constitutional promise to protect children from exploitation,” the Bench observed.

Sensitivity Essential While Recording Child Testimony

The Supreme Court underscored that minor victims are not accomplices but injured witnesses, and their testimony deserves the highest degree of respect and sensitivity. The Court cautioned against discrediting a child’s evidence due to trivial inconsistencies, stressing that trauma, fear, threats, social stigma, and uncertainty about rehabilitation severely affect a child’s ability to recall events coherently.

Recounting traumatic memories, the Court said, amounts to secondary victimisation, particularly when the victim is a minor.

Conviction Based on Credible Testimony

Relying on the landmark judgment in State of Punjab vs Gurmit Singh (1996), the Supreme Court reiterated that a conviction can be based solely on the testimony of the victim if it is found credible. In the present case, the victim’s statement was corroborated by NGO workers, decoy witnesses, and independent evidence.

Finding the minor’s testimony reliable and trustworthy, the Court dismissed the appeal filed by K.P. Kirankumar @ Kiran vs State by Peenya Police, a case dating back to 2010. The apex court, on December 19, affirmed the judgments of the trial court and the Karnataka High Court, which had found the accused guilty under multiple provisions.

Strong Warning to Society

Calling child sexual trafficking “horrifying, inhuman, and deeply entrenched”, the Supreme Court warned that such crimes pose a direct threat to society and the Constitution itself. Courts, it said, must adopt a humane, realistic, and victim-centric approach while dealing with cases involving minor survivors of sexual exploitation.