'Child Trafficking A Disturbing Reality': Supreme Court Lays Down Guidelines To Evaluate Evidence Of Victims

Calling child trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation a “deeply disturbing reality” in India, the Supreme Court on Friday (December 19) laid down detailed guidelines on how courts must sensitively and realistically appreciate the evidence of minor victims of trafficking and prostitution, cautioning against discarding their testimony over minor inconsistencies or stereotypical notions of conduct.

A Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Joymalya Bagchi issued the guidelines while upholding the conviction of a Bengaluru man and his wife for trafficking and sexually exploiting a minor girl, affirming judgments of the Trial Court and the Karnataka High Court under the Indian Penal Code and the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

Writing for the Bench, Justice Bagchi observed that cases of child trafficking are not isolated aberrations but part of an entrenched pattern of organised exploitation that continues despite legislative safeguards. The Court said that judicial assessment of such cases must be informed by sensitivity to the lived realities of minor victims rather than rigid or hyper-technical standards of proof.

Guidelines On Appreciating Victim Testimony

While appreciating the evidence of a minor victim of trafficking, the Court ought to bear in mind:

1. Her inherent socio-economic and, at times, cultural vulnerability when the minor belongs to a marginalised or socially and culturally backward community.
2. Complex and layered structure of organised crime networks which operate 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. Such diffused and apparently disjoint manner in which the crime verticals operate in areas of recruitment, transportation, harbouring and exploitation make it difficult, if not impossible for the victim, to narrate with precision and clarity the interplay of these processes as tentacles of an organised crime activity to which she falls prey. Given this situation, 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. 
3. 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. 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. In this backdrop, judicial appreciation of victim's evidence must be marked by sensitivity and realism.
4. If on such nuanced appreciation, the version of the victim appears to be credible and convincing, a conviction may be maintained on her sole testimony. 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.

Case Background And Findings

The case arose from a police raid conducted in November 2010 at a rented house in Peenya, Bengaluru, after NGO workers informed the police that a minor girl was being kept there for prostitution. A decoy operation was conducted, following which the police rescued the minor victim and recovered cash, including the money paid by the decoy, and other incriminating articles from the premises.

The minor victim testified that she had been forcibly brought to the appellants' house, confined there, and sexually exploited for commercial purposes. Her testimony was corroborated by NGO workers, the decoy witness, an independent witness and recovery of 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 by pointing to alleged inconsistencies in the victim's testimony, discrepancies regarding the layout of the premises, and procedural lapses in the search under the ITPA. Rejecting these contentions, the Court held that the contradictions were minor and inconsequential, and that statutory requirements for search had been substantially complied with.

Age Determination And Procedural Compliance

The Court also reaffirmed that the age of a minor victim must ordinarily be determined on the basis of school records, in line with the principles laid down in Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 263., and that ossification tests are only a fallback option. In the present case, the victim's school certificate conclusively established that she was a minor at the time of the offence.

On the argument that the search violated Section 15(2) of the ITPA, the Bench held that even if there were deviations, they amounted at best to an irregularity and did not vitiate the trial in the absence of any failure of justice.

Applying the guidelines it had articulated, the Supreme Court held that the minor victim's testimony was credible, consistent on material particulars, and sufficiently corroborated by other evidence on record. Upholding the conviction and sentence of the accused, the Court dismissed the appeal, reiterating that courts bear a special responsibility to protect the dignity and rights of child victims of sexual exploitation.

Case : KP Kirankumar @ Kiran v State by Peenya Police

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1234

Click here to read the judgment