Calcutta HC Upholds Conviction of Four; Minor's Consent Irrelevant in Trafficking

In a stern reinforcement of child protection laws, the Calcutta High Court has ruled that a minor's possible intent to elope does not mitigate the criminality of sex trafficking, emphasizing that any unauthorized removal of a minor from parental custody for exploitation constitutes a grave violation of the Indian Penal Code. The Court underscored that psychological trauma in sex-trafficking victims often leads to evolving testimonies, which must be viewed with sensitivity rather than skepticism by trial courts.

Justice Rajasekhar Mantha and Justice Rai Chattopadhyay, while presiding over the criminal appellate jurisdiction, addressed the appeals filed by four individuals convicted for the abduction and subsequent sale of a 17-year-old girl into a multi-state sex-trafficking network. The Bench meticulously analyzed the nuances of the Indian Penal Code and the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act to determine the liability of the appellants who transported the victim from West Bengal to Rajasthan and Gujarat.

The Primacy of Minor's Welfare and Deceitful Abduction

The Court observed that since the victim was admittedly 17 years old at the time of the incident, she was under the natural and lawful custody of her parents. Any act of taking her away without parental consent, regardless of her initial acquaintance with one of the accused, attracts the penalties for kidnapping and abduction. The Bench noted that the appellants used "deceitful means," such as providing drugged tea, to maintain "uncontested control" over the victim during her transit to Delhi, Jaipur, and eventually Gandhidham.

In its reasoning, the Court observed: "The very fact that she was a minor and was taken away from Diamond Harbour to Howrah, Delhi, Jaipur and Gandhidham without the consent of her natural guardians namely her father, mother or her brother would attract the penalties under Sections 363, and 366 of the Indian Penal Code."

Referring to the precedent in Kavita Chandrakant Lakhani v. State of Maharashtra ( "(2018) 6 SCC 664": 2018 CaseBase(SC) 1385), the Court reiterated that the volition or intention of the accused determines the offence. Once the intent to kidnap or abduct for illicit intercourse is established, the offence is complete, irrespective of whether the woman consented or the accused succeeded in their purpose.

Sensitivity Towards Evolving Testimony of Trafficking Victims

Addressing the defense's argument regarding contradictions in the victim's statements across different stages of the trial, the Court highlighted the severe psychological impact of trafficking. The Bench observed that victims are often reluctant to disclose the full extent of their trauma initially due to embarrassment or fear of social rejection.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The victim must have been encouraged by the Judicial Magistrate to recollect some portions of her trauma which she did to an extent by the time the first trial started... The victim was only making improvements, which she was justified and entitled to do so both psychologically as well as in reality."

Citing State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh and Others ( "(1996) 2 SCC 384": 1996 CaseBase(SC) 1295), the Bench emphasized that courts shoulder a great responsibility in rape and trafficking cases and must not be swayed by minor contradictions in the prosecutrix's statement if the overall evidence inspires confidence.

Court's Decision and Directions

The Court upheld the conviction of all appellants but granted a minor reduction in the sentence for one appellant, Nazim Sk, noting his role in triggering the rescue by making a phone call to the victim's father, which helped the police trace her location in Gujarat.

The Court has following directions:

"The trial court records along with a copy of this judgement be sent down at once to the learned trial court for necessary action."

Background:

The case originated in March 2013 when a 17-year-old girl went missing from Mograhat. She was lured by the appellants to Diamond Harbour, drugged, and trafficked to Jaipur, where she was sold to a brothel and sexually exploited by multiple men. She was later moved to a red-light area in Gandhidham, Gujarat. The breakthrough occurred when one appellant made a phone call to the victim's father, enabling the police to trace the location. The Trial Court convicted the appellants under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. The appellants challenged the conviction on grounds of investigative gaps and alleged contradictions in the victim's testimony. The High Court dismissed the appeals of the primary offenders while slightly modifying the sentence for one co-appellant.

Case Details:
Case No.: C.R.A. 353 of 2015 with C.R.A. 198 of 2014
Case Title: Ramjan Molla @ Pintu Molla @ Rupchand @ Raju Versus The State of West Bengal with Nazim Sk. @ Nazim Shake @ Roni & Ors. Versus The State of West Bengal
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Surojit Basu, Mr. Arun Kumar Halder, Ms. Jacika Alam.
For the Respondent(s): Dr. Pradip Banerjee, Ld. APP, Ms. Shalu Gupta, Mr. Kallol Mondal, Ld. Public Prosecutor, Mr. Ayan Basu, Mr. Gautam Banerjee.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(CAL) 1583