Home  > Recent Judgements  > CHILD TRAFFICKING A DISTURBING REALITY’: SUPREME COURT LAYS DOWN GUIDELINES TO EVALUATE EVIDENCE OF VICTIMS

Dec  21- 2025

CHILD TRAFFICKING A DISTURBING REALITY’: SUPREME COURT LAYS DOWN GUIDELINES TO EVALUATE EVIDENCE OF VICTIMS

KP KIRANKUMAR @ KIRAN V. STATE BY PEENYA POLICE

“Judicial appreciation of victim’s evidence must be marked by sensitivity and realism.” – the Court said.

Calling child trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation a “deeply disturbing reality” in India, the Supreme Court of India has laid down authoritative guidelines on how courts must evaluate the testimony of minor victims of trafficking and prostitution. The ruling underscores that minor inconsistencies or stereotypical expectations of conduct cannot form the basis for disbelieving victims who have endured organised sexual exploitation.

The guidelines were issued by a Bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, while affirming the conviction of a Bengaluru-based couple for trafficking and sexually exploiting a minor girl under the Indian Penal Code and the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (ITPA).

Judicial Sensitivity in Child Trafficking Cases

Writing for the Bench, Justice Bagchi observed that cases of child trafficking are not isolated aberrations but manifestations of entrenched and organised criminal networks that continue to operate despite statutory safeguards. The Court cautioned against adopting rigid or hyper-technical standards of proof while evaluating the testimony of minor victims, stressing that such an approach, risks compounding their trauma.

The judgement reiterates that courts must assess evidence in light of the lived realities of trafficked children, many of whom come from marginalised socio-economic backgrounds and are subjected to intimidation, deception, confinement, and prolonged sexual exploitation.

Guidelines on Appreciating Victim Testimony

While assessing the testimony of a minor victim of trafficking, the Supreme Court directed courts to bear in mind the following critical considerations:

  1. The inherent socio-economic and, at times, cultural vulnerability of minor victims, particularly when they belong to marginalised or socially and culturally backward communities.
  2. The complex and layered structure of organised crime networks involved in trafficking. These networks function through multiple verticals recruitment, transportation, harbouring, and exploitation which often operate in a diffused and deceptively disconnected manner. In such circumstances, the victim may be unable to narrate with precision the entire chain of criminal conduct. The Court clarified that failure to protest at early stages or inability to clearly explain each link of the trafficking operation cannot be treated as conduct inconsistent with ordinary human behaviour.
  3. Recounting experiences of sexual exploitation before law enforcement agencies and courts is an “unpalatable experience” that often leads to secondary victimisation. This trauma is aggravated when the victim is a minor facing threats, fear of retaliation, social stigma, and limited prospects of rehabilitation. In this backdrop, judicial appreciation of victim’s evidence must be marked by sensitivity and realism.
  4. If, upon such nuanced appreciation, the testimony of the victim appears credible and convincing, a conviction can be sustained on her sole testimony. The Court emphasised that a minor victim of sex trafficking is not an accomplice; her testimony deserves the same weight as that of an injured witness.

Case Background and Evidentiary Findings

The case arose from a police raid conducted in November 2010 at a rented premises in Peenya, Bengaluru, following information provided by NGO workers that a minor girl was being detained there for prostitution. A decoy operation was organised, during which money was paid to the accused. The police subsequently rescued the minor victim and recovered cash, including the decoy amount, along with other incriminating articles from the premises.

The minor victim deposed that she had been forcibly brought to the accused’s house, unlawfully confined, and sexually exploited for commercial purposes. Her testimony was corroborated by NGO workers involved in the rescue, the decoy witness, an independent witness, and the recovery of material evidence. On this basis, the Trial Court convicted the accused in 2013, and the Karnataka High Court dismissed their appeal in February 2025.

Rejection of Defence Arguments

Before the Supreme Court, the appellants sought to assail the conviction by highlighting alleged inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony, discrepancies regarding the layout of the premises, and purported procedural lapses during the search conducted under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

Rejecting these submissions, the Court held that the contradictions pointed out were minor and inconsequential, having no bearing on the core prosecution case. The Bench further ruled that the statutory requirements relating to search and seizure had been substantially complied with and that no prejudice or failure of justice had been demonstrated.

Age Determination and Procedural Compliance

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that determination of a victim’s age must ordinarily be based on school records, in line with the principles laid down in JARNAIL SINGH V. STATE OF HARYANA (2013) 7 SCC 263. Ossification tests, the Court clarified, are only a fallback mechanism when documentary evidence is unavailable. In the present case, the victim’s school certificate conclusively established that she was a minor at the time of the offence.

On the contention that the search violated Section 15(2) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, the Bench held that even assuming certain deviations, they amounted to irregularities rather than illegalities and did not vitiate the trial in the absence of any demonstrable miscarriage of justice.

Conclusion

Applying the principles and guidelines it articulated, the Supreme Court concluded that the minor victim’s testimony was credible, consistent on material particulars, and sufficiently corroborated by independent and documentary evidence. Upholding the conviction and sentence of the accused, the Court dismissed the appeal and reiterated that courts bear a special responsibility to protect the dignity, rights, and psychological well-being of child victims of sexual exploitation.

This judgement stands as a significant reaffirmation of victim-centric jurisprudence, reinforcing that the criminal justice system must respond to child trafficking not with scepticism or stereotypes, but with empathy, realism, and a firm commitment to justice.