A Minor’s Sole Testimony, If Credible, Is Sufficient for Conviction: Supreme Court Upholds Child Trafficking Conviction Under IPC and ITPA

“Victim of Child Trafficking Is Not an Accomplice – Testimony Must Be Evaluated With Sensitivity and Realism,”  On December 19, 2025, the Supreme Court of India dismissed a criminal appeal and upheld the conviction of the appellant under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, for trafficking and commercially sexually exploiting a minor girl. The Court ruled that the sole credible testimony of a minor victim, even without medical corroboration, is sufficient for conviction in trafficking cases, particularly when supported by circumstantial and corroborative evidence.

The bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Joymalya Bagchi emphasized that courts must adopt a "sensitive and realistic approach" in evaluating the testimony of minor victims of sex trafficking, noting that such victims are not accomplices but injured witnesses who deserve the full protection of the legal system.

“Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children Is Not an Aberration But an Organised Crime Network” – Court Rejects Technical Objections Raised by Defence

Dismissing the appeal against concurrent findings of conviction by the trial court and Karnataka High Court, the Supreme Court affirmed that victim’s age, testimony, and the raid operation clearly established the chain of events. The Court held:

“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.”

The case stemmed from a decoy operation conducted in 2010 after NGO workers informed the police about minor girls being used for prostitution in a rented apartment in Peenya, Bangalore. The minor victim (PW-13) was rescued in the raid, and multiple corroborating witnesses (including PW-8 and PW-12) confirmed the appellant’s role in facilitating prostitution.

The Court rejected the appellant's arguments seeking to cast doubt on the victim’s testimony on account of minor inconsistencies, such as topographical discrepancies in describing the apartment and omission of injuries in earlier statements. These were deemed immaterial in light of the overall reliability and consistency of the victim’s narrative.

“Failure to Protest Does Not Invalidate the Victim’s Version When the Crime Is Organised and Victim Is Vulnerable” – Legal Principles Laid Down

In a deeply reflective section of the judgment, the Court laid down key principles for appreciating the evidence of minor victims of sex trafficking. The Court underscored the structural vulnerability of victims, the layered nature of trafficking networks, and the trauma associated with recounting exploitation, stating:

“Judicial appreciation of a minor victim’s evidence must be marked by sensitivity and realism… Recounting the horror of sexual exploitation is unpalatable and often leads to secondary victimisation.”

Citing the landmark judgment in State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996), the Court reiterated:

“A rapist degrades the very soul of the helpless female. Courts must examine broader probabilities and not discard reliable victim testimony for minor discrepancies.”

Victim’s Age Conclusively Proved as 16 Years – School Records Prevail Over Medical Opinion

The age of the minor was established as 16 years and 6 months on the date of the incident, based on the school certificate (Ex. P-3) issued by the Headmaster (PW-7). The Court reaffirmed the law laid down in Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana (2013), holding:

“The date of birth in the school first attended by the victim prevails over ossification tests. Medical opinion is not required when documentary proof exists.”

The Court noted that under Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007, school records take precedence and no contrary evidence was led by the defence.

Search Conducted Under ITPA Was Valid – Non-Compliance with Section 15(2) Is an Irregularity, Not Illegality

Challenging the search under Section 15(2) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, the appellant argued that it was illegal as no local respectable woman witnessed the search. The Court, however, ruled that the presence of NGO witnesses (PW-8 and PW-12), who were independent, was sufficient compliance.

The Court invoked its earlier ruling in Bai Radha v. State of Gujarat and clarified:

“Non-compliance with Section 15(2) of ITPA is an irregularity unless prejudice is caused. No illegality arises unless justice is affected.”

Further, PW-14, the landlord's wife, was also approached to be a witness but turned hostile. This, the Court held, did not affect the legality of the proceedings.

Conviction Under IPC and ITPA Upheld – Evidence Proves Appellant Facilitated Sexual Exploitation of Minor for Profit

On the totality of evidence, the Supreme Court held that the ingredients of offences under Sections 366A, 373, and 34 of the IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the ITPA were clearly made out. The appellant, along with his wife (co-accused), was found to have:

• Harboured a minor girl for purposes of prostitution
• Negotiated with clients for sexual services
• Received marked currency during a decoy operation
• Was present at the scene with the victim when the raid occurred

The Court concluded:

“The decoy witness offered money to the appellant for sexual gratification. The currency was recovered, a condom was found at the scene, and the minor’s testimony was corroborated. Conviction is fully justified.”

Supreme Court Sends a Clear Message: Sensitivity, Not Skepticism, Must Guide Courts in Child Sex Trafficking Cases

This ruling is a strong reaffirmation that the criminal justice system must rise to protect the most vulnerable, especially children trapped in trafficking and sexual exploitation. By reiterating that victim testimony is not to be doubted simply because it lacks perfect clarity, and that procedural irregularities cannot overshadow substantive justice, the Court has laid a progressive, victim-centric precedent.

The Court warned against the misuse of legal technicalities to shield organised crime, especially in crimes where victims often lack access to timely legal help or medical evidence.

Date of Decision: December 19, 2025