Back
Brothel Customer Can't Know Minor's Age or Caste: Grants
Bengaluru, August 10: The has granted to a man who was a customer in a brothel where a minor girl was forced into prostitution, observing that a customer cannot be expected to know the victim's age or caste. Justice S. Rachaiah set aside the 's order denying , ruling that the appellant's of the victim's age and caste weighed in his favor.
The was filed under , challenging the order of the . The case involves multiple charges under the , the , the , and the .
The Disturbing Background
According to the prosecution, the minor victim, who lost her mother six years ago, had been living with her father. On , she accompanied her father to a hospital in Birur, after which they stayed at her grandmother's house. On December 20, the father took her to Mangaluru, allegedly at the instigation of her aunt. While there, she was housed with accused No.1 and forced into prostitution.
Between December 24 and 26, 2025, the victim was made to undergo sexual activities with multiple men. Her father reportedly instructed her to cooperate. After returning to Birur, she narrated the ordeal to her aunt and uncle, who helped her lodge a complaint with the .
Arguments from Both Sides
Appellant's Submission: Counsel for the appellant, , argued that his client was a mere customer and was unaware of the victim's actual age or her Scheduled Caste status. He contended that the appellant was innocent and should be granted with suitable conditions, which he promised to abide by.
Prosecution's Opposition: The High Court Government Pleader, , strongly opposed , emphasizing the severe mental trauma inflicted on the minor. He pointed out that the victim had been subjected to by multiple men, and that her own father had acted as her pimp. The prosecution argued that the appellant, as a customer, must have known the victim's age and caste, making him complicit in the heinous crime.
Court's Legal Analysis
Justice Rachaiah examined the and found the appellant's argument justified. The court reasoned that a customer of a brothel cannot be expected to know the exact age or caste of the victim. The relevant passage from the judgment reads:
"On going through the averments of the said charge-sheet, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant has to be justified for the reasons that the appellant being a customer of the brothel cannot be possible to know the actual age and caste of the victim."
The court distinguished between the knowledge of the brothel operators and that of a customer, concluding that the appellant's lack of awareness of the victim's age and caste was plausible. This reasoning formed the basis for granting .
The Order
The High Court allowed the and ordered the appellant's release on subject to the following conditions: - Execution of a of Rs. 1,00,000 with one to the satisfaction of the . - Prohibition from committing any similar offence until the disposal of the case. - Mandatory appearance before the on all hearing dates. - No threatening or influencing of prosecution witnesses.
The court warned that violation of any condition would enable the prosecution to seek cancellation of .
Implications
This judgment clarifies that in cases involving brothel customers, the prosecution must establish that the customer had of the victim's age or caste to attract enhanced charges under the POCSO and SC/ST Acts. While the ruling does not condone the act of engaging with a minor in prostitution, it ensures that decisions are made based on the of each accused. The trial will proceed, and the appellant remains subject to the court's jurisdiction.
