2025 Supreme(SC) 2089

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
MANOJ MISRA, JOYMALYA BAGCHI, JJ.
K.P. Kirankumar @ Kiran – Appellant
Versus
State by Peenya Police – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 5614 of 2025 [Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No. 11287 of 2025]
Decided On : 19-12-2025

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Victim of sex trafficking, particularly a minor, is not an accomplice and her deposition is to be given due regard and credence as that of an injured witness – Judicial appreciation of victim’s evidence must be marked by sensitivity and realism.
(2) Determination of age – Age determined through Ossification Test is a mere approximation and cannot be held to have better probative value than a certificate issued by school.

Headnote:

(A) Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 – Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 read with Section 15(2) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 366A, 373 and 34 – Child trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation – Conviction and sentence – Contradictions are minor and victim’s version has been substantially corroborated by other evidence on record – Trial Court and High Court have correctly appreciated evidence of minor trafficked victim, considering need for sensitivity and latitude while appreciating evidence of minor victims of sex trafficking and prostitution – Police also recovered cash received by appellant, along-with other incriminating articles – Victim of sex trafficking, particularly a minor, is not an accomplice and her deposition is to be given due regard and credence as that of an injured witness – Judicial appreciation of victim’s evidence must be marked by sensitivity and realism – If on such nuanced appreciation, version of victim appears to be credible and convincing, conviction may be maintained on her sole testimony – Statutory requirements under Section 15(2) were substantially complied with and conviction cannot be doubted on such score – Conviction and sentence upheld. (Paras 10, 11, 12, 18 and 19)

(B) Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 – Rule 12 – Determination of age – Age determined through Ossification Test is a mere approximation and cannot be held to have better probative value than a certificate issued by school – Date of birth recorded in certificate from school first attended by victim would take precedence over medical opinion (Ossification Test). (Para 14)

Facts of the case:

Instant case lays bare deeply disturbing reality of child trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation in India, an offence that strikes at the very foundations of dignity, bodily integrity and State’s constitutional promise of protection to every child against exploitation leading to moral and material abandonment. The facts are not isolated aberrations but form part of a wider and entrenched pattern of organised exploitation that continues to flourish despite legislative safeguards.

Findings of Court:

Search was undertaken in presence of the decoy PW-8 and PW-12. They are respectable and independent persons residing in the same city, who had joined the search. Nothing is brought on record to show that they are pocket witnesses who had deposed for the police in other cases. PW-14 (wife of the owner of the premises) had also been requested to witness the search.

Result : Appeal dismissed.