The Orissa High Court clarified that mere presence at a brothel does not automatically implicate individuals under IPC Sections 370 (3) and 370 A (2) related to trafficking and sexual exploitation. The judgment emphasized the necessity of concrete evidence, setting a precedent for fair legal proceedings in such cases.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
The Orissa High Court has made significant clarifications. The court stated that Sections 370 (3) and 370 A (2) of the IPC cannot be automatically applied based solely on the presumption that a customer at a brothel is involved in trafficking or sexual exploitation activities. This ruling came from a single-judge bench led by Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra, who emphasized the need for concrete evidence before implicating individuals under these serious charges.
ALSO READ: Electoral Bonds Unconstitutional | Supreme Court Rejects Anonymous Political Donations
The case in question revolved around two individuals who were accused of being customers at a brothel, which was masquerading as a spa. The legal proceedings against them were initiated after a raid conducted by the Bhubaneswar Capital police station unveiled a clandestine operation. During the raid, eight young girls were discovered within the premises, with seven allegedly engaged in sexual activities with clients. The controversy began when it was alleged that the two petitioners were among those clients.
Justice Mishra, in his ruling dated February 9, made it clear that the mere presence of an individual in such a setting does not automatically implicate them in the offences outlined in Sections 370 (3) and 370 A (2) of the IPC.
He stated–
“It is only when the customer performs his role of procuring the women for another, the offence under Section 370 IPC could be employed into action against the customer.”
This statement underscores the necessity for a direct involvement in the act of trafficking or exploitation for the charges to be valid.
ALSO READ: West Bengal| Supreme Court Terminates Trials Over Post-Poll Violence
Further elaborating on the conditions under which these charges could apply, Justice Mishra added,
“In the absence of material that women are trafficked for the purpose of engaging in sexual exploitation, the offence under Section 370A (2) of IPC will not be attached against the customer.”
This observation highlights the court’s stance that evidence of trafficking or exploitation is paramount for such charges to hold.
The backdrop of this case involves a complaint received by the Bhubaneswar Capital police station, alleging that a brothel was operating under the guise of a spa.
The police raid that followed led to the discovery of eight young girls, all of whom were adults from Thailand. Despite the initial suspicions, none of the girls confirmed being trafficked or sexually exploited, as per their statements and the verification of their passports and visas.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court: Litigants Cannot Be Prevented from Filing False Civil Cases Against Lawyers
Justice Mishra criticized the trial court’s decision to take cognizance of the charges against the petitioners without substantial evidence.
He remarked-
“In the absence of any material on record the trial court was absolutely wrong in taking cognizance of offences under Sections 370 (3) and 370A (2) of the IPC against the present petitioners.”
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
