Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | Crl.A. No.-005614-005614 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 24596/2025 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE |
| Bench | HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all courts |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing precedents (Gurmit Singh, Jarnail Singh, Bai Radha) |
| Type of Law | Criminal law; Child trafficking; Sexual-exploitation; Juvenile justice |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that (i) the testimony of a minor victim, if credible and substantially corroborated, can alone sustain conviction under IPC 366A, 372, 373 and ITPA provisions without requiring further corroboration; (ii) a school certificate of date of birth, under Rule 12(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, conclusively determines age over ossification tests; and (iii) substantial compliance with Section 15(2) ITPA—calling two independent respectable witnesses (including one woman) to witness a search—renders the recovery valid and does not automatically vitiate the trial. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | On 22.11.2010, NGO informants led police to a rented house in Peenya where A1 & A2 trafficked and commercially sexually exploited a 16½-year-old minor. A decoy officer (PW-8) offered money for sex, then signalled the raiding party, which rescued the victim and seized cash, a mobile phone, and a condom. FIR No. 778/2010 charged A1 & A2 under IPC 366A, 372, 373, 34 and ITPA Sections 3–6; the trial and High Courts convicted and sentenced both appellants. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | High Courts in India where analogous child-trafficking or ITPA search issues arise |
| Distinguishes | State (UT of Delhi) v. Ram Singh (search without warrant by unauthorized officer vs. substantial compliance under ITPA) |
| Follows | State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh; Jarnail Singh v. Haryana; Bai Radha v. Gujarat |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The sole credible testimony of a minor victim may sustain conviction under IPC and ITPA, notwithstanding minor contradictions, per the sensitivity standard in Gurmit Singh.
- A school certificate of the victim’s first-attended institution under Rule 12 JJ Rules conclusively fixes age over ossification reports.
- Technical non-compliance with Section 15(2) ITPA is not fatal if two independent respectable witnesses (one female) substantially witnessed the search.
- Courts must factor in socio-economic and cultural vulnerability of minor trafficking victims and the layered structure of criminal networks when assessing their testimony.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
-
Appreciation of Minor Victim’s Evidence
- Adopt a victim-centric framework from State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh.
- Minor contradictions (e.g., apartment topography, communication mode) are immaterial if core testimony is consistent and corroborated.
-
Corroboration and Recovery
- Decoy witness (PW-8) and independent witness (PW-12) confirmed appellant received money for sex with the minor.
- Physical recovery of currency, a condom, and the victim on the premises reinforce guilt.
-
Age Determination
- Under Rule 12(3) JJ Rules, a school certificate of date of birth is conclusive, per Jarnail Singh.
- Ossification tests hold lower probative value than documentary school records.
-
Search-Witness Compliance
- Section 15(2) ITPA requires two respectable local witnesses (one female) to attend search.
- Applying Bai Radha and CrPC principles, substantial compliance cures technical lapses and does not vitiate evidence.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant)
- The victim’s account is embellished and contains material contradictions on forcible intercourse and premises layout.
- Inconsistencies between PW-1’s and PW-8’s versions of pre-raid communication undermine credibility.
- PW-12’s inability to identify appellants in court questions the reliability of decoy testimony.
- Age certificate is unreliable without ossification test confirmation.
- Search violated Section 15(2) ITPA and should render recovery inadmissible.
Respondent (State / Prosecution)
- Minor victim’s testimony is credible, coherent, and substantially corroborated by two independent witnesses and physical evidence.
- School certificate under Rule 12 JJ Rules conclusively proves age; ossification is merely approximate.
- Decoy operation and recovery followed procedural safeguards; slight procedural variances are immaterial.
- Substantial compliance with Section 15(2) ITPA—witnesses PW-8, PW-12, and attempted inclusion of the landlady—validates search.
Factual Background
On 22.11.2010, NGO workers informed police that a minor was held for prostitution in a rented house at Peenya, Bangalore. A decoy operation by PW-8 and PW-12 confirmed commercial sex with the minor; police subsequently raided, rescued the victim, and seized cash and a condom. FIR No. 778/2010 charged the appellants under IPC 366A, 372, 373, 34 and ITPA Sections 3–6. The trial and High Courts convicted A1 & A2; this appeal challenges the appreciation of victim evidence, age proof, and search procedure.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 15(2), ITPA: Mandates calling two or more respectable local inhabitants (one female) to witness search; akin to CrPC Section 100(4).
- Rule 12(3), JJ Rules 2007: Hierarchy for age determination—matriculation certificate; school first-attended certificate; municipal birth certificate; then medical opinion.
- IPC Provisions: Sections 366A (child trafficking), 372–373 (selling/jumping into prostitution), and Section 34 (common intent).
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing jurisprudence on minor-victim testimony, age proof, and ITPA search procedure is reaffirmed.