Court Affirms Conviction in Child Trafficking Case; Holds Minor’s Sole Testimony Can Sustain Conviction

A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Joymalya Bagchi heard the criminal appeal filed by K.P. Kirankumar @ Kiran challenging his conviction under the Indian Penal Code and the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act (ITPA). The appeal arose from concurrent findings of the trial court and the Karnataka High Court which had convicted the appellant and his wife for procuring and exploiting a minor for commercial sexual purposes; the appellant assailed, inter alia, the victim’s testimony, proof of age and the validity of the search and rescue operation.

The Court upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the High Court and dismissed the appeal. It found the testimony of the minor victim (PW‑13) to be credible and substantially corroborated by independent witnesses and material recoveries, and it held that the prosecution proved offences under sections 366A, 373, & 34 IPC read with sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the ITPA. The Court emphasised the need for sensitivity in evaluating evidence of trafficked minors and rejected the contention that non‑compliance with section 15(2) of the ITPA vitiated the trial, holding that the statutory requirements were substantially complied with on the facts. The Court noted at the outset the “deeply disturbing reality of child trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation in India,” and directed that the conviction and sentence stand. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "While appreciating the evidence of a minor victim of trafficking, the Court ought to bear in mind: i. Her inherent socio‑economic and, at times, cultural vulnerability when the minor belongs to a marginalised or socially and culturally backward community. ii. Complex and layered structure of organised crime networks which operate at various levels of recruiting, transporting, harbouring and exploiting minor victims... iii. 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... iv. 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. 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."

Background The prosecution case arose from information received by NGO workers that minor girls were being kept for prostitution at a rented house in Peenya, Bangalore. On 22.11.2010 police, assisted by NGO informants and a decoy, raided the premises and rescued a minor (PW‑13). The decoy (PW‑8) testified that he offered money to the appellant in the presence of the minor and later intimated the police; currency notes were recovered from the appellant and a condom and other incriminating articles were seized. The trial court relied significantly on the victim’s testimony, corroboration by PW‑8 and PW‑12, and documents including a school certificate (Ex. P‑3) recording the victim’s date of birth, and convicted the accused in July 2013. The High Court dismissed the criminal appeal on 05.02.2025, finding no credible defence evidence to rebut the prosecution case and declining to reduce sentence.

On appeal to this Court the appellant challenged the victim’s account as embellished, disputed age (urging ossification tests), and contended that search and rescue violated section 15(2) of the ITPA which requires attendance of two or more respectable inhabitants (including at least one woman) to witness the search. The Supreme Court examined the contradictions urged by the defence and treated them as minor, noting passage of time and the contextual difficulties faced by trafficked minors in narrating layered criminal processes. Relying on Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice Rules and this Court’s precedents, the Court accepted the school record as proof of age (16 years and 6 months at the time of the incident) and held that ossification evidence did not supplant documentary proof. On the challenge under section 15(2), the Court found substantial compliance as the decoy and an independent companion joined the raid, and the house‑owner had been invited to witness the search (though she later turned hostile). The Court therefore concluded that there was no failure of justice warranting interference.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld conviction and sentence. Pending applications, if any, stood disposed of.

Case No.: 2025 INSC 1473 Case Title: K.P. Kirankumar @ Kiran v. State by Peenya Police Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Not indicated For the Respondent(s): Not indicated