Criminal Law — Child Trafficking and Commercial Sexual Exploitation — Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (ITPA) — Sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 — Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 366A, 372, 373, and 34 — Appreciation of Evidence of Minor Victim — Age Determination — Procedural Irregularity in Search.

Criminal Law — Child Trafficking and Commercial Sexual Exploitation — Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (ITPA) — Sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 — Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 366A, 372, 373, and 34 — Appreciation of Evidence of Minor Victim — Age Determination — Procedural Irregularity in Search.

Appreciation of Minor Victim’s Evidence: The Court emphasized that when dealing with a minor victim of trafficking, judicial appreciation must be marked by sensitivity and realism. The inherent socio-economic vulnerability and the layered structure of organized crime networks make it difficult for victims to narrate events with surgical precision. Minor contradictions in the description of the crime scene or delayed protestations should not be grounds to discard a credible version. (Paras 10–11).

Victim Status vs. Accomplice: A victim of sex trafficking, particularly a minor, is not an accomplice. Their deposition should be treated with the same weight as that of an injured witness. Reliance placed on State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996) regarding the destruction of a victim’s personality through sex crimes. (Para 11).

Age Determination — Primacy of School Records: For determining the age of a minor victim, the date of birth recorded in the school certificate from the school first attended takes precedence over a medical ossification test. Age determined via ossification is an approximation and cannot override statutory preference for school records as per Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice Rules. Reliance placed on Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana (2013). (Para 14).

Search and Seizure — Section 15(2) ITPA: Non-compliance with the requirement of calling two or more respectable inhabitants (including a woman) of the locality to witness a search under the ITPA is a mere irregularity. It does not vitiate the trial unless a failure of justice is proven. Reliance placed on Bai Radha v. State of Gujarat (1969). (Paras 15–18).

---

ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW

1. Factual Matrix

The case originated from a police raid on November 22, 2010, at a rented premises in Bangalore following information from an NGO (PW-11). A decoy (PW-8) was sent to the premises, where he negotiated a price with the appellant (A1) for sexual acts with a minor victim (PW-13). Upon signal, the police raided the spot, rescued the minor, and recovered marked currency and incriminating articles (condoms). The minor testified to being kidnapped, wrongfully confined, and coerced into prostitution. Both the Trial Court and High Court convicted the accused.

2. Legal Analysis: Appreciation of Evidence (Paras 8–13)

The appellant challenged the victim’s testimony citing:

• Discrepancies in the topography of the house.

• Inconsistencies regarding physical injuries in her previous statement vs. court testimony.

The Court’s Finding: The Supreme Court rejected these arguments, noting that in trafficking cases, the "complex and layered structure of organized crime" often veils the intersections of recruitment and exploitation. The Court held that "failure to promptly protest" or minor variations in describing the layout of a room are "minor contradictions" that do not affect the core of the prosecution’s case.

3. Legal Analysis: Age of the Victim (Para 14)

The defense argued for an ossification test to determine minority. The Court’s Finding: Under the framework of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, there is a hierarchy of evidence.

1. Matriculation/School Certificate.

2. Birth Certificate (Corporation/Panchayat).

3. Medical Opinion (only in the absence of the above). Since the Headmaster (PW-7) produced a valid school certificate showing the victim was 16 years and 6 months old, the medical test was unnecessary.

4. Legal Analysis: Procedural Compliance of Search (Paras 15–18)

Section 15(2) of the ITPA requires a search to be witnessed by local "respectable inhabitants," including a woman. The defense argued the search was illegal as these conditions weren't strictly met. The Court’s Finding: The Court distinguished between an "unauthorized officer" conducting a search (which might be fatal) and an "authorized officer" committing a procedural slip. Following the precedent in Bai Radha, the Court held that since independent witnesses (the decoy and his associate) were present and the house owner's wife was requested (though she later turned hostile), there was "substantial compliance."

5. Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were based on a "nuanced appreciation" of the victim's testimony and supported by strong corroborative evidence from the raid.