The Supreme Court has upheld the conviction of an appellant accused of child trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation, reinforcing the principle that the testimony of a minor victim, if credible, can sustain a conviction without the need for corroboration.
In the case of K.P. Kirankumar @ Kiran vs. State by Peenya Police, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant (A1), challenging the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court of Karnataka. The Court upheld the conviction under Sections 366A, 372, 373, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (ITPA).
The Bench, comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, observed that the case exposes “the deeply disturbing reality of child trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation in India,” describing it as an offence that “strikes at the very foundations of dignity, bodily integrity and the State’s constitutional promise of protection to every child.”
Background of the Case
The prosecution’s case dates back to November 22, 2010, when H. Sidappa (PW-1), a police officer, received information from NGO workers that minor girls were being kept for prostitution at a rented house in Peenya, T. Dasarahalli, Bangalore.
Acting on this intelligence, a raiding party was formed, and a decoy witness, Jaikar (PW-8), was sent to the premises. PW-8 offered money to the appellant for sexual favours from a minor victim (PW-13). Following the signal from the decoy, the police raided the premises, rescued the minor victim, and seized the currency notes, a mobile phone, and other incriminating articles.
The Trial Court convicted the appellant (A1) and his wife (A2) on July 25, 2013, relying substantially on the testimony of the minor victim, which was corroborated by the decoy witness and an independent witness (PW-12). The High Court subsequently dismissed their appeal on February 5, 2025, confirming the conviction and observing that no mitigating circumstances warranted a reduction in sentence.
Arguments of the Parties
The counsel for the appellant challenged the victim’s version and the prosecution’s case on several grounds:
- Discrepancies in Testimony: It was argued that the victim’s claim in Court regarding injuries suffered due to forcible sexual intercourse was an embellishment, as it was not mentioned in her previous statement before the Magistrate.
- Topography Contradictions: The defence highlighted contradictions regarding the topography of the rented apartment, noting differences between the victim’s description (two rooms) and the description given by other witnesses (one hall).
- Violation of Procedure: The appellant argued that the search and recovery were conducted in violation of Section 15(2) of the ITPA, which mandates the presence of two or more respectable inhabitants of the locality, including a woman, during a search.
Court’s Analysis
Appreciation of Minor Victim’s Evidence The Supreme Court rejected the contentions regarding minor contradictions in the victim’s testimony. Justice Bagchi, writing for the Bench, emphasized the need for “sensitivity and realism” when appreciating the evidence of minor victims of sex trafficking.
The Court observed:
“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… In this backdrop, judicial appreciation of victim’s evidence must be marked by sensitivity and realism.”
Citing the precedent in State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh and Others (1996), the Court reiterated that if a victim’s version is credible, conviction may be maintained on her sole testimony. The Bench found PW-13’s testimony to be “most credible” and corroborated by the NGO worker (PW-11), the decoy witness (PW-8), and the independent witness (PW-12).
Determination of Age The Court addressed the appellant’s argument regarding the lack of an ossification test. Relying on the school headmaster’s certificate (Ex. P-3) which recorded the victim’s date of birth as April 24, 1994, the Court held that documentary evidence takes precedence over medical opinion.
Citing Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana (2013), the Bench affirmed that under Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, a matriculation or school certificate is the highest-rated option for age determination. The Court noted that in the presence of such a certificate, “no other material is to be relied upon,” including medical opinion.
Validity of Search under ITPA Regarding the alleged violation of Section 15(2) of the ITPA, the Court clarified that this provision is akin to Section 100(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Referring to Bai Radha v. State of Gujarat (1969), the Court stated that an infraction of this provision is an irregularity that does not per se vitiate the trial unless a failure of justice is shown.
The Court noted:
“In the present case, the search was undertaken in presence of the decoy PW-8 and PW-12. They are respectable and independent persons residing in the same city… statutory requirements u/s. 15(2) were substantially complied with.”
Decision
The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution had proved beyond doubt that the appellant and his wife used the rented premises for prostitution by sexually exploiting the minor victim. The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence awarded by the High Court.
Case Details:
- Case Title: K.P. Kirankumar @ Kiran vs. State by Peenya Police
- Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. /2025 (Arising out of SLP (CRL.) No. 11287/2025)
- Citation: 2025 INSC 1473
- Coram: Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
