Victim’s Consistent Testimony Alone Can Sustain Conviction: Calcutta High Court

In a significant reaffirmation of legal principles governing cases of human trafficking and sexual exploitation, the Calcutta High Court upheld the convictions under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code including Sections 366, 366B, 370, 370A(2) and 120B, for their role in trafficking a minor Bangladeshi girl and forcing her into prostitution. The judgment was delivered by Justice Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee.

The Court dismissed the defence contentions regarding inconsistencies in the victim’s statements and alleged irregularities in the Test Identification Parade (TIP), holding that the “victim’s testimony was consistent, reliable, and fully corroborated by medical evidence and identification proceedings.”

“Corroboration is Not a Rule in Sexual Assault Cases When Testimony Inspires Confidence”: High Court Reiterates

At the heart of the case was the testimony of the minor victim, who was allegedly trafficked from Bangladesh by a woman named Sumi, and later handed over to the appellants—first to Subir Jana, and then to Surya Pradhan in Bhubaneswar, where she was subjected to sexual exploitation.

The Court decisively rejected the argument that the victim’s statement required independent corroboration:

“It is well settled that if the testimony of a victim is a voluntary expression and is an accurate impression of the same, no corroboration of testimony is required. I do not feel any necessity to give undue importance regarding omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not touch the root of the case.” [Para 24]

Citing State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, the Court emphasised: “Seeking corroboration of the prosecutrix’s statement in such cases, as a rule, amounts to adding insult to injury. A woman subjected to sexual assault is not an accomplice to the crime but is a victim of another person’s lust.”

“TIP Conducted in Accordance with Law; Identification of Accused Valid”: Court Rejects Claims of Police Influence

One of the central challenges raised by the defence was the credibility of the Test Identification Parade, which, they argued, was compromised due to the presence of police officers and delay in conduct.

The Court, however, found that the Magistrate conducted the TIP in full compliance with legal safeguards, noting: “Thirty under-trials of same height, built, stature, dress, appearance, colour, complexion were standing in a row. The victim girl identified the accused Subir Jana by touching his head… and Surya Pradhan @ Sankar by touching his head.” [Para 26]

On the allegation of police presence vitiating the TIP, the Court observed: “There is no statement from the victim that the I.O took her personally for identification in the Correctional Home. The I.O merely arranged for her presence and informed the Magistrate.” [Para 27]

Further, the Magistrate himself, deposing as PW4, categorically stated: “No police personnel or outsider were present at the time of holding TIP. The arrangement was satisfactory.” [Para 18]

“Victim’s Consistent Account Since FIR to Court Testimony Leaves No Doubt”: Calcutta High Court on Veracity of Allegations

The victim, deposing as PW2, consistently recounted her ordeal—how Sumi lured her from Bangladesh, Subir Jana trafficked her to Bhubaneswar, and Surya Pradhan forced her into prostitution. Even if some details in her Section 164 CrPC statement varied slightly, the “gist remained the same and was sufficient to corroborate her court testimony”.

“The victim in course of cross examination stated that she disclosed the entire incident to the police, and the appellants did not contradict such statement by putting suggestions.” [Para 17]

The Court noted that defence failed to elicit any contradiction through cross-examination of the Investigating Officer (PW12) and as such, no dent was made in the core of the prosecution case.

“Medical Evidence Confirms Repeated Sexual Exploitation”: Court Finds Additional Corroboration

The medical examination report further strengthened the prosecution’s case. The doctor found “multiple old healed tears at 3, 5 and 7 o’clock positions in the hymen” and opined that the victim was “habituated to sexual intercourse”, which corroborated the victim’s narrative of prolonged exploitation.

The Court underscored that such evidence, combined with the victim’s unshaken deposition, established the offences beyond reasonable doubt.

“Minor Contradictions Do Not Vitiate Core Allegations”: Calcutta High Court Applies Settled Precedents

The appellants had argued that inconsistencies between the FIR, the Section 164 CrPC statement, and trial testimony rendered the victim’s version unreliable. The Court disagreed.

Quoting Vinod Kumar Garg v. State, the Court reminded: “Minor contradictions on some details are bound to occur and are natural when the evidence is taken at a time gap of a few years… Witnesses are not required to recollect and narrate the entire version with photographic memory.” [Para 26]

The Court also referenced Manga Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh,  observing: “Minor contradiction or small discrepancies should not be grounds for throwing the evidence of the prosecutrix when it establishes the offence beyond reasonable doubt.” [Para 25]

“Both Accused Played Direct Role in Procuration and Exploitation of Victim”: Court Affirms Sentence

The Court found that both accused acted in conspiracy, engaged in procuring and transporting a trafficked minor, and exploiting her for commercial sexual activity.

“Both the accused persons have played direct role in procuration and importation of victim girl from foreign country, in making conspiracy with each other and exploited such trafficked woman.” [Para 19]

Justice Mukherjee was unequivocal in holding that the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court were fully supported by law and evidence:

“In view of aforesaid factual background of the case… I find no reason to disbelieve the credibility and trustworthiness of the testimony of victim and other witnesses. The conviction and sentence awarded to both the appellants are sustainable and do not call for interference.” [Para 27]

The Court dismissed both criminal appeals.

Date of Decision: September 9, 2025