The Supreme Court has termed child trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation a deeply disturbing reality in India. It issued landmark guidelines directing courts to sensitively assess minor victims’ testimony and not discard it over minor inconsistencies.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday described child trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation of children as a “deeply disturbing reality” in India and issued detailed guidelines directing courts to sensitively and realistically assess the testimony of minor victims of sex trafficking.
A Bench comprising Justices Manoj Misra and Joymalya Bagchi held that the deposition of a trafficked child, particularly a minor, must be accorded due regard and credence, and should not be discarded merely because of minor inconsistencies or stereotypical notions of “normal” conduct.
The Court emphasised that a minor victim of sex trafficking is not an accomplice, and her testimony, if credible and convincing, can by itself form the basis for a conviction.
Writing the judgment, Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that courts must appreciate the evidence of minor victims by keeping in mind their inherent socio-economic and cultural vulnerability, especially when they belong to marginalised or socially backward communities.
The Court noted that organised child trafficking networks operate through complex, layered and diffused structures involving recruitment, transportation, harbouring and exploitation. This fragmented nature often makes it difficult for victims to narrate events with precision or clarity.
“Such organised crime activities operate as apparently independent verticals whose insidious intersections are conveniently veiled through subterfuge and deception to hoodwink innocent victims,”
the Bench said.
The Supreme Court cautioned trial courts against disbelieving trafficked children due to minor contradictions or delayed resistance to exploitation.
It held that a victim’s failure to promptly protest against an “ostensibly innocuous yet ominous agenda” of traffickers cannot be treated as conduct against ordinary human behaviour.
“Recounting and narration of the horrible spectre of sexual exploitation, even before law enforcement agencies and courts, is an unpalatable experience leading to secondary victimisation,”
the judgment observed, adding that this trauma is more acute for minors facing intimidation, social stigma and lack of rehabilitation.
The Bench ruled that if, upon a nuanced and sensitive appreciation, the victim’s version appears credible and convincing, a conviction can be maintained on her sole testimony.
“A victim of sex trafficking, particularly a minor, is not an accomplice. Her deposition is to be given due regard and credence as that of an injured witness,”
the Court directed.
Case Background: Bengaluru Child Trafficking Case
The ruling came while dismissing an appeal against the conviction of a Bengaluru man and his wife under the Indian Penal Code and the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
The case arose from a police raid conducted in November 2010 at a rented house in Peenya, Bengaluru, following information from NGO workers that a minor girl was being kept there for prostitution. A decoy operation led to the rescue of the minor and recovery of cash and incriminating material.
The victim testified that she had been forcibly brought to the house, confined, and sexually exploited for commercial purposes. Her testimony was corroborated by NGO workers, the decoy witness, independent witnesses, and material evidence.
The Trial Court convicted the accused in 2013, and the Karnataka High Court upheld the conviction in February 2025.
Supreme Court Guidelines on Appreciating Victim Testimony
While appreciating the evidence of a minor victim of trafficking, courts must bear in mind:
- Inherent Vulnerability
The victim’s socio-economic and cultural vulnerability, particularly when she belongs to a marginalised or socially and culturally backward community. - Nature of Organised Trafficking Networks
Child trafficking is carried out through complex and layered organised crime networks operating at multiple levels—recruitment, transportation, harbouring, and exploitation. - Diffused Crime Structure
These networks function as apparently independent verticals, whose connections are concealed through subterfuge and deception, making it difficult for victims to fully understand or explain the entire criminal process. - Difficulty in Narration
Because of the disjointed manner in which trafficking operations occur, it may be impossible for the victim to narrate events with precision or clarity, and this cannot be used to discredit her testimony. - Delayed Resistance Not a Ground for Disbelief
A victim’s failure to promptly protest or resist an “ostensibly innocuous yet ominous” plan of the trafficker should not be treated as conduct against ordinary human behaviour. - Secondary Victimisation
Recounting experiences of sexual exploitation before police and courts is an unpalatable and traumatic experience, often resulting in secondary victimisation, especially for minors. - Threats and Social Realities
Courts must consider factors such as fear of retaliation, criminal intimidation, social stigma, and lack of economic and social rehabilitation while assessing testimony. - Sensitivity and Realism in Judicial Assessment
Judicial appreciation of evidence must be marked by sensitivity, realism, and empathy, rather than rigid or hyper-technical standards. - Sole Testimony Can Sustain Conviction
If, after nuanced appreciation, the victim’s version is found credible and convincing, a conviction can be based solely on her testimony. - Victim Is Not an Accomplice
A trafficked child, particularly a minor, must not be treated as an accomplice. Her testimony is to be given due regard and credence, equivalent to that of an injured witness.
Reaffirming settled law, the Supreme Court reiterated that the age of a minor victim must ordinarily be determined based on school records, as held in Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana (2013). Ossification tests should be used only as a last resort.
On alleged procedural lapses under Section 15(2) of the ITPA during the search, the Court held that any deviations were mere irregularities and did not vitiate the trial in the absence of a failure of justice.
Upholding the convictions, the Supreme Court stressed that courts bear a special constitutional responsibility to protect children from sexual exploitation and trafficking.
Judicial appreciation of evidence in such cases, the Court said, must be guided by sensitivity, realism and an understanding of the lived realities of trafficked children, rather than rigid or hyper-technical standards of proof.
Case Title:
KP Kirankumar @ Kiran v State by Peenya Police
SLP (CRL.) No. 11287/2025
READ JUDGMENT
Read More Reports On Child Trafficking