In a strongly worded judgment, the Bombay High Court on Thursday (October 1) held that a Indian Citizen booked for running a brothel and forcing a woman into prostitution cannot be spared just because the woman is an illegal immigrant from Bangladesh as this would be nothing but 'victim shaming.' The High Court said that labels such as 'illegal immigrant' does not strip the woman's dignity and protection against trafficking.

Single-judge Justice Milind Sathaye criticised the advocates for arguing that their client was an Indian woman and that she should not be punished and convicted under the Immoral Trafficking (Prevention) Act (PITA) just because the female victim involved in the case was an illegal immigrant from Bangladesh. The judge said that such an argument must be rejected at the outset as the same are completely misconceived and based on a convoluted idea about prosecution.

"Just because the victim is an illegal immigrant, the offence does not become any lesser. To say that at the instance of a victim, the Applicant should not be prosecuted or convicted, completely ignores the fact that the victim is also a human being. This is nothing but victim shaming. Such argument must be rejected at the threshold. When an offence is committed, the effort under criminal law is to prosecute and punish the perpetrator. The effort can never be and should not be to shame the victim. Such argument clearly indicates cognitive bias," Justice Sathaye observed.

Just because a victim is an illegal immigrant (assuming her to be so), the Court cannot consider it as a reason for not convicting the perpetrator. Being illegal immigrant will have its own legal consequences, no doubt. But that will not make the offence any lesser, the judge said.

"The law cannot permit an immigration label to become a licence for indignity. Constant judgment can make us lose sight of the person before the Court. The issue therefore is not whether the victim possesses a valid immigration document; the issue is whether the Accused has committed the offence involving a human being. The Court must not allow a human being to disappear behind the labels such as 'illegal immigrant', 'sex worker', or 'rescued woman'. Each label may have its own legal consequence, but none extinguishes dignity of a victim and protection from trafficking. In that view of the matter, the said argument has no merit and it is rejected," Justice Sathaye underscored.

Further, the judge rejected the applicant's argument about alleged lack of independent witnesses in the case as the witnesses examined by the prosecution and relied upon by the special court to convict her, were the victim, the NGO persons (who tipped the police), the I.O etc, all of whom, the applicant claimed were 'interested witnesses.' The applicant argued that the NGO persons would obviously support the prosecution case as they would want to 'boast' about the number of girls, they have rescued.

However, Justice Sathaye was not impressed with these contentions. He explained, "In cases like these, where raids are conducted on brothels and known-places of prostitution, it is obvious that independent witnesses from the Society will not be available. Persons who are volunteering, such as the witnesses connected with an NGO, as in the present case, will have to be taken aid of. Therefore, evidence of the complainant working as IO with NGO and the person working with NGO, who has acted as decoy customer, can not be branded as interested witnesses," the judge held.

With these observations the bench dismissed the revision application filed by Rani Singh, who challenged her conviction under the PITA and the two and three years rigorous imprisonment awarded to her upon finding her guilty of running a brothel in Grant Road, Mumbai and also forcing the victim, an alleged Bangladeshi national into prostitution.

Appearance:

Advocates Prabhanjay Dave and Shankar Ambhure appeared for the Applicant.

Additional Public Prosecutor Manisha Tidke represented the State.