Introduction
Calling child trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation a “deeply disturbing reality” in India, the Supreme Court of India has laid down detailed guidelines for courts to sensitively and realistically evaluate the testimony of minor victims of trafficking and prostitution. The ruling, delivered on 19 December 2025, marks a significant development in victim-centric criminal jurisprudence by cautioning courts against discarding a minor victim’s testimony on the basis of minor inconsistencies, stereotypes, or rigid standards of proof.
The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Joymalya Bagchi, while upholding the conviction of a Bengaluru couple for trafficking and sexually exploiting a minor girl under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (ITPA).
This ruling strengthens the legal framework protecting trafficked children and reiterates that judicial assessment must be informed by empathy, realism, and an understanding of organised crime structures rather than hyper-technical scrutiny.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a police raid conducted in November 2010 at a rented house in Peenya, Bengaluru, following information received from NGO workers that a minor girl was being exploited for prostitution.
A decoy operation was organised, after which:
- The minor victim was rescued
- Cash, including the decoy money, was recovered
- Incriminating articles were seized from the premises
The minor victim testified that she was forcibly brought, confined, and sexually exploited for commercial purposes by the accused. Her testimony was corroborated by:
- NGO workers
- The decoy witness
- Recovery of material evidence
Both the Trial Court and the Karnataka High Court convicted the accused. The matter reached the Supreme Court, where the appellants challenged the conviction primarily on the ground of alleged inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony.
Supreme Court’s Observations on Child Trafficking
Writing for the Bench, Justice Joymalya Bagchi made strong observations on the nature of child trafficking in India. The Court emphasised that:
- Child trafficking is not an isolated aberration, but part of an entrenched pattern of organised crime
- Such crimes persist despite legislative safeguards
- Courts must not approach these cases with a detached or purely technical mindset
The Court underlined that trafficked minors often come from socio-economically marginalised backgrounds, making them particularly vulnerable to exploitation and manipulation.
Guidelines for Appreciating Evidence of Minor Victims
The Supreme Court laid down specific principles to guide courts while evaluating the testimony of minor victims of trafficking and prostitution.
1. Recognising Socio-Economic Vulnerability
Courts must consider:
- The social, economic, and cultural vulnerability of the minor
- The fact that many victims belong to marginalised or backward communities
Such vulnerability affects how victims perceive, process, and narrate traumatic events.
2. Understanding Organised Crime Structures
The Court highlighted that trafficking operations involve complex and layered networks, including:
- Recruiters
- Transporters
- Harbourers
- Exploiters
These often operate as seemingly independent verticals, deliberately designed to:
- Conceal interconnections
- Mislead victims
- Evade law enforcement
Due to this fragmented structure, victims may be unable to narrate events with precision or chronological clarity.
3. No Adverse Inference from Delayed Protest
The Court categorically held that:
- Failure to protest at an early stage against the trafficker’s actions cannot be treated as improbable conduct
- Many traffickers initially present an innocuous façade before revealing their exploitative intent
Expecting a minor victim to immediately resist or escape reflects stereotypical assumptions rather than ground realities.
4. Acknowledging Secondary Victimisation
The Court recognised that:
- Recounting sexual exploitation before police and courts is an extremely traumatic experience
- This leads to secondary victimisation, especially when the victim is a minor
Factors such as:
- Fear of retaliation
- Criminal intimidation
- Social stigma
- Lack of rehabilitation
often inhibit full and consistent disclosure.
Therefore, judicial appreciation must be marked by sensitivity and realism.
5. Conviction Based on Sole Testimony
Importantly, the Supreme Court clarified that:
- If the victim’s testimony is found credible and convincing, conviction can be sustained on her sole testimony
- A minor victim of sex trafficking is not an accomplice
- Her evidence deserves the same weight as that of an injured witness
This reinforces settled principles while adapting them to the realities of trafficking crimes.
Rejection of Hyper-Technical Approach
The Bench warned courts against:
- Discarding testimony due to minor inconsistencies
- Applying rigid standards of corroboration
- Judging victims based on “ordinary human conduct” stereotypes
Such approaches, the Court held, risk perpetuating injustice and emboldening traffickers.
Significance of the Judgment
This ruling is significant for several reasons:
Victim-Centric Jurisprudence
It strengthens India’s move towards trauma-informed and victim-centric adjudication, especially in cases involving children.
Guidance for Trial Courts
The guidelines provide practical judicial tools for trial courts handling trafficking and sexual exploitation cases.
Alignment with Constitutional Values
The judgment aligns with:
- Article 21 (Right to Life and Dignity)
- India’s obligations under international anti-trafficking conventions
Deterrence Against Trafficking
By easing unreasonable evidentiary burdens, the judgment enhances the likelihood of convictions, thereby strengthening deterrence.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling in “Child Trafficking a Disturbing Reality” is a powerful reminder that law cannot be blind to lived realities. By directing courts to approach minor victims’ testimony with empathy, realism, and contextual understanding, the judgment bridges the gap between legal formalism and social justice.
At a time when child trafficking continues to plague society despite legislative safeguards, this decision reaffirms the judiciary’s role as a protector of the most vulnerable, ensuring that procedural rigidity does not become a shield for organised exploitation.
Also Read
Renewal of Driving Licence After a Gap Will Not Operate From Date of Expiry: Supreme Court
