Deception To Lure Minors Into Prostitution Attracts Section 366 IPC: Gauhati HC

The Gauhati High Court has reinforced the protective shield for victims of trafficking, ruling that any deceptive inducement used to lure a minor into prostitution, including false promises of marriage and religious identity, constitutes a grave violation of the law. In a stern message to human traffickers, the Court upheld the conviction of a man who sold his romantic partner to a brothel, affirming that the absence of physical injury marks does not dilute the charge of aggravated sexual assault in POCSO cases.

In a combined hearing of two criminal appeals, a Division Bench comprising Justice Michael Zothankhumah and Justice Sanjeev Kumar Sharma adjudicated upon the conviction of Jahanuddin Sk and Salma Begum. The appellants had challenged the judgment of the Special Judge (POCSO), Kokrajhar, which found them guilty of trafficking a minor girl into a brothel in Siliguri and abetting aggravated penetrative sexual assault.

Judicial Scrutiny of Deceptive Inducement

The Court focused on the illegal intention of the appellant, Jahanuddin Sk, who used a Hindu pseudonym, 'Raju Das', to gain the victim's trust and induce her to elope. The Bench observed that such deception, specifically aimed at luring a minor into the sex trade, squarely attracts the provisions of Section 366 of the IPC. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The fact that the appellant Jahanuddin had by a false promise of love and affection induced the victim to elope with him, by telling the victim that his name was Raju Das, a Hindu boy. This deception by Jahanuddin on the victim girl clearly shows the illegal intention of the appellant Jahanuddin, to lure a minor girl into the prostitution, by falsely promising marriage on the ground of being in love with the minor victim."

Admissibility of Birth Certificates under 1969 Act

A critical legal question arose regarding the determination of the victim's age. The defense argued that the birth certificate issued under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 was not a valid document for age determination under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. However, the Court relied on the precedent set in Saiful Islam Vs. State of Assam and Anr. to hold that a birth certificate issued under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 carries a presumption of correctness under Section 79 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Court's Findings on Evidence and Medical Reports

The Court dismissed the appellants' contentions regarding contradictions in the victim's statements under Section 161 and Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. It emphasized that the victim's testimony was corroborated by the medical evidence provided by PW-21, which confirmed a ruptured hymen and multiple instances of sexual intercourse. The Court further noted: "it is settled law that absence of injury marks on the body of the victim, does not mean that the victim had not been raped."

Regarding the conviction, the Court has following directions:

"The appeals stand dismissed. Send back the TCR. In appreciation of the assistance provided by the learned Amicus Curiae for the respondent No. 2, her fees should be paid by the High Court Legal Services Committee."

Key Takeaways:

Deceptive Intent as a Criminal Element

Using a false identity and promise of marriage to lure a person into a situation of exploitation fulfils the criteria for abduction and trafficking under the IPC.

Validity of Statutory Birth Certificates

Birth certificates issued under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 are substantive evidence for determining the age of a victim in POCSO and JJ Act proceedings, aligning with the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Corroboration Over Technicality

Minor variations in police statements do not invalidate a victim's testimony if the core narrative of exploitation remains consistent and is supported by medical findings.

Ratio Decidendi:

The core legal principle established is that the use of deceitful means, including the fabrication of religious identity and romantic intent to facilitate the sale of a minor for prostitution, satisfies the requirements for conviction under Section 366 of the IPC and relevant provisions of the POCSO Act, 2012. Furthermore, certificates issued under the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 are admissible for age determination in criminal trials involving children, as they carry a legal presumption of genuineness.

Background:

The victim, a minor working as a maid, eloped with the appellant Jahanuddin Sk, who had introduced himself as Raju Das. Instead of marriage, Jahanuddin took her to Siliguri and sold her to Salma Begum, who operated a brothel in a red-light area. The victim was detained for three days and subjected to sexual assault by multiple customers before being rescued by the police. The trial court convicted Jahanuddin under Sections 6/17 of the POCSO Act, 2012, several sections of the IPC, and Section 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. Salma Begum was convicted for running a brothel and trafficking. The High Court, after reviewing the testimonies of 23 witnesses and precedents like Tomaso Bruno & Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Rai Sandeep @ Deepu Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) ( "(2012) 8 SCC 21": 2012 CaseBase(SC) 82), upheld the convictions, finding the victim to be a credible witness.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRL.A(J)/22/2023
Case Title: Jahanuddin Sk @ Ali Jiban @ Raju Das Vs. The State Of Assam And Anr.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): MR. S BISWAS, MS. M R DOLAI, Mr. M. Khan, Advocates
For the Respondent(s): Mr. R.R. Kaushik, Addl. P.P., MS. S SHARMA, AMICUS CURIAE

Source: 2026 CaseBase(GAU) 13