Back
2025 Supreme(SC) 1593
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Surya Kant and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.
Dhansai Satnami – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1467 of 2025 (Arising Out of SLP (Criminal) No. 6868 of 2022)
Decided on : 25-03-2025
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 370(3) - Conviction for human trafficking - Appellant's conviction upheld by High Court for inducing laborers with false promises and subsequently exploiting them. The court confirmed the sufficiency of witness testimonies, although one co-accused was acquitted based on inconsistently attributed blame. Sentence initially set at 10 years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine was subsequently reduced to time served. (Paras 2, 6, 14, 17)
(B) Human Trafficking - Essential elements of the offence - Clear establishment of inducement and exploitation of laborers through false promises of employment. The court emphasized that oral testimonies, despite lack of corroborative evidence, were sufficient to support conviction based on credibility determined at trial. (Paras 7, 11, 12)
Facts of the case:
The appellant misled laborers regarding wages and conditions for employment, then failed to fulfill promises, leading to their exploitation. Following the filing of the FIR, the appellant absconded before eventually surrendering. (Paras 3, 4)
Findings of Court:
The conviction under Section 370(3) was supported by the corroborative testimony of multiple laborers, establishing the appellant's fraudulent conduct. The trial court was found justified in its conclusions. (Paras 6, 12)
Issues: The validity of the conviction regarding sufficient evidence, fairness of the sentence, and the appropriate disparity in treatment of co-accused were central considerations for the court. (Paras 10, 14)
Ratio Decidendi: The court maintained that the witness statements were credible and sufficiently demonstrated the appellant's culpability under the cited section; mitigating circumstances warranted a reconsideration of the sentence. (Paras 16, 17)
Result: Appeal partially allowed, with the sentence reduced to time already served.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts of the case regarding trafficking (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. confirmation of conviction under section 370(3) ipc (Para 7 , 8) |
| 3. arguments regarding conviction and sentence (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 15) |
| 4. court's reasoning on evidence and conviction (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. final order reducing the sentence (Para 16 , 17) |
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant assails the judgment dated 08.07.2021 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh, whereby his conviction under Section 370(3) of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 and consequential sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs.500/- has been upheld.
3. The prosecution case is that the complainant (Vijay Kumar Ratre), PW-1, submitted a written complaint alleging that on 24.10.2014, the appellant along with his co-accused, Maniram, took the complainant and several other labourers from their village in Chhattisgarh to Uttar Pradesh under the promise of employment with good wages and facilities at a brick manufacturing work. The complainant was allegedly assured wages at the rate of Rs.475 per one thousand bricks, along with free accommodation, medical facilities, and kerosene and wood for cooking. However, upon reaching the destination, none of the promised wages or facilities were provided. When the complainant and other labourers realised the deceit, they refused to work further and requested the appellant and his co-accused to arrange for the return. However, no such assistance was provided. The complainant somehow managed to escape and lodged the subject FIR, whereupon the other bonded labourers were also rescued.
4. The further prosecution case is that the appellant, on registration of the FIR, absconded, and he was declared a proclaimed offender. The appellant, then, surrendered on 20.08.2015 before the trial court, whereafter charges were framed and trial was conducted.
5. On consideration of the evidence on record, including deposition of some of the victims, the trial court held the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 370(3) of the IPC, while his co-accused, Maniram, was acquitted. The appellant, as noticed at the outset, was sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-.
6. The aggrieved appellant filed Criminal Appeal No. 308 of 2017 before the High Court, which has been dismissed vide the impugned judgment. The High Court has, inter-alia, observed that the complainant's version regarding taking him and other villagers to Sai Baba Bricks Factory in Uttar Pradesh and their exploitation as bonded labourers was duly corroborated by the statements of Rustam Kumar (PW-2), Santkumar (PW-4), and Phulbai (PW-5). The High Court has also noticed that though Firturam (PW-3) turned hostile, but he too has admitted the fact that the owner of the bricks factory was not paying the assured wages and not giving the requisite facilities.
7. The High Court has thus concluded as follows:
9. On a minute examination of the statements of the above witnesses, it is clear that all the witnesses remained firm in stating that the present Appellant had come to their village and induced them that they will get wages of Rs.475 for construction of per thousand bricks and will also get different free facilities and because of such inducement only they consented to go to the bricks factory. It is also established that thereafter the Appellant had taken the Complainant and other labours to Saibaba Bricks Factory, Uttar Pradesh. It is also established that the Complainant and other labours were not getting the assured wages and facilities there and, therefore, when the Complainant and other labours requested the Appellant to send them back, he did not help them. Thus, it is clearly established that the Appellant fraudulently exploited the Complainant and other labours by giving them certain inducement for the above mentioned purpose. Hence, the offence under Section 370(3) of the Indian Penal Code is duly proved against the Appellant. The Trial Co
