The Rajasthan High Court has suspended the sentence imposed upon two men convicted in relation to human trafficking of a minor, opining that mere existence of marriage with a minor could not dispense with the prosecution's obligation to prove the essential ingredients of the substantive allegations against the convicts.

The bench of Justice Farjand Ali observed that the Court must carefully distinguish between the legal consequences flowing from a marriage involving a minor and alleged commission of any separate criminal offence in connection with the marriage.

“Such an assessment must necessarily be undertaken with reference to the applicable law and without attributing criminal culpability merely on the basis of suspicion or the existence of circumstances which, by themselves, do not establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt.”

For context, the Court was hearing an application for suspension of sentence filed by convicted persons who were sentenced to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment for being involved in trafficking of a minor in exchange of monetary consideration.

After hearing the contentions and overall appreciation of the facts, the Court highlighted that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellants, beyond reasonable doubt, and the adduced evidence did not inspire that degree of confidence which was required for finding guilt in a criminal trial.

The Court firstly highlighted that as per the categorical admission of the minor, whose testimony had direct bearing on the prosecution's case, she was not aware whether she was sold for consideration of money or not. Based on this, the Court opined that such testimony caste doubt on the prosecution's theory of the alleged transaction.

Further, the Court stated that no cogent, reliable or satisfactory evidence was produced to demonstrate the actual giving or receipt of any monetary consideration in connection with the alleged transaction.

The Court held that, at the most, the prosecution's proven case was that the victim was a minor at the time of her marriage to the appellant. In this regard, the Court stated,

“Whether the evidence on record establishes the ingredients of the offences for which the appellants have been convicted, or whether the circumstances disclose, at the highest, a violation of the applicable statutory provisions relating to child marriage, is a question that warrants a dispassionate and legally informed examination.”

Furthermore, the Court took into account the fact that there was a relationship between the victim's mother and one of the appellants, as well as an assertion that they were agreeable for the marriage to secure the victim's well-being. In this regard, the Court observed,

“The relationship between the parties and their respective conduct may provide relevant contextual background for understanding how the alleged marriage came to be solemnized and whether the prosecution's theory of sale or exploitation finds corroboration in the surrounding circumstances. However, such a circumstance cannot, by itself, conclusively establish either the innocence or the guilt of the appellants; its significance must be assessed alongside the entire body of evidence and in conjunction with the specific allegations made against each of them.”

In this light, the Court held that the deficiencies in the prosecution evidence, especially in relation to the monetary consideration, testimony of the victim, as well as the circumstances of marriage, could not be ignored while considering the present application.

Accordingly, it was held that the appellants had made a case for suspension of sentence during pendency of the appeal.