Courts Must Evaluate Minor Trafficking Victims’ Evidence With Sensitivity And Realism; Supreme Court Lays Down Guidelines After Calling Child Trafficking A Deeply Disturbing Reality
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, calling child trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation a “deeply disturbing reality”, dismissed an appeal on Friday, December 19, 2025, and upheld the conviction and sentence of a man and his wife for trafficking a minor girl and subjecting her to commercial sexual exploitation from a rented premises in Bengaluru. The Court also laid down guidelines for courts to assess the evidence of minor victims of trafficking and prostitution with sensitivity and realism and said their testimony should not be rejected merely due to minor inconsistencies or stereotypical assumptions about how a victim is expected to behave.
The case originated from a police operation conducted on 22.11.2010 at a rented premises in Peenya, T. Dasarahalli, Bengaluru, after information was received from NGO workers regarding the confinement of minor girls for prostitution. Acting on the information, a decoy accompanied by an independent witness was sent to the premises, where money was allegedly paid to the accused for sexual access to a minor girl. Following this, the police conducted a raid, rescued the minor victim, and recovered the currency notes handed over by the decoy. Additional articles, including cash, a mobile phone, and a condom, were seized from the premises.
A complaint was registered against the accused for offences under Sections 366A, 372, 373, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. During trial, the prosecution examined sixteen witnesses, including the minor victim, members of the raiding team, NGO workers, independent witnesses, and the owner of the premises. The Trial Court convicted the accused based on the evidence led by the prosecution. The High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
The Court recorded: “The instant case lays bare the deeply disturbing reality of child trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation in India, an offence that strikes at the very foundations of dignity, bodily integrity and the State’s constitutional promise of protection to every child against exploitation leading to moral and material abandonment.” It further stated: “The facts before us are not isolated aberrations but form part of a wider and entrenched pattern of organised exploitation that continues to flourish despite legislative safeguards.”
On the challenge to the minor victim’s testimony, the Court recorded: “The Courts below rightly rebutted such contentions holding that the contradictions are minor and the victim’s version has been substantially corroborated by other evidence on record.” It stated: “We are of the view that both Trial Court and High Court have correctly appreciated the evidence of the minor trafficked victim, considering the need for sensitivity and latitude while appreciating the evidence of minor victims of sex trafficking and prostitution.”
The Court then set out guidance in the following terms: “While appreciating the evidence of a minor victim of trafficking, the Court ought to bear in mind:” It recorded: “Her inherent socio-economic and, at times, cultural vulnerability when the minor belongs to a marginalised or socially and culturally backward community.”
It also recorded: “Complex and layered structure of organised crime networks which operate at various levels of recruiting, transporting, harbouring and exploiting minor victims.” On how such networks function, it stated: “Such organised crime activities operate as apparently independent verticals whose insidious intersections are conveniently veiled through subterfuges and deception to hoodwink innocent victims.”
It further recorded: “Such diffused and apparently disjoint manner in which the crime verticals operate in areas of recruitment, transportation, harbouring and exploitation make it difficult, if not impossible for the victim, to narrate with precision and clarity the interplay of these processes as tentacles of an organised crime activity to which she falls prey.” On conduct-based objections, it stated: “Given this situation, failure to promptly protest against ostensibly innocuous yet ominous agenda of the trafficker ought not to be treated as a ground to discard a victim’s version as improbable or against ordinary human conduct.”
On the experience of narrating exploitation, the Court recorded: “Recounting and narration of the horrible spectre of sexual exploitation even before law enforcement agencies and the Court is an unpalatable experience leading to secondary victimisation.” It added: “This is more acute when the victim is a minor and is faced with threats of criminal intimidation, fear of retaliation, social stigma and paucity of social and economic rehabilitation.” It then stated: “In this backdrop, judicial appreciation of victim’s evidence must be marked by sensitivity and realism.”
On when conviction may rest on the victim’s testimony, the Court recorded: “If on such nuanced appreciation, the version of the victim appears to be credible and convincing, a conviction may be maintained on her sole testimony.” It added: “A victim of sex trafficking, particularly a minor, is not an accomplice and her deposition is to be given due regard and credence as that of an injured witness.” It also quoted precedent: “The courts should examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix… to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case.”
Applying this approach, the Court recorded: “Weighing PW-13’s version on the aforesaid legal scales, we are convinced that her testimony is most credible and establishes that A1 & A2 had procured her for sexual exploitation and utilised her for such immoral purposes.” It stated: “The minor’s version is also corroborated by other evidence on record.” On variations regarding pre-raid communication, it recorded: “Admittedly, there was some form of communication between PW-8 and PW-1 prior to the raid and as such, slight variation with regard to the manner in which such communication took place does not render the unfolding of the prosecution case vulnerable.”
The Supreme Court recorded that “we uphold the conviction and sentence awarded by the High Court and dismiss the appeal”. It further directed that “pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of”.
Case Title: K.P. Kirankumar @ Kiran v. State by Peenya Police
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1473
Case Number: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 11287 of 2025
Bench: Justice Manoj Misra, Justice Joymalya Bagchi
