Burden of proof in trafficking cases requires evidence of coercion or exploitation, which was absent; mere testimony without corroboration is insufficient for conviction.

JUDGMENT :

Parthivjyoti Saikia, J.

Heard Mr. N. Uddin, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr. P. Borthakur, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutors, Assam as well Ms. M.K. Brown, the learned Amicus Curiae representing Respondent No.2.

2. This is an appeal under Section 415 of the BNSS, 2023 whereby the judgment and order dated 21.06.2024 and 24.06.2024 respectively passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udalguri, Assam in Sessions Case (II) No.08/2021 is put to challenge.

3. One day in the year 2010, the informant lady (PW-1) had gone to the residence of her uncle Md. Hussain Khan at Kalikhola. She met the present two appellants. They induced her to go to Barpeta where her another uncle resided. But she was taken to Delhi. Both the appellants sold her at a price of Rs.50,000/-. At that time, she was only 11 years old. Initially, she was employed there as a maid in a household. After that, a man from Haryana called Pradip Saharan married her. After about 5/6 years, she became the mother of two sons. On 27.05.2018, she returned to Assam and on 30.08.2018, she reached her home at North Kalikhola.

4. After expiry of so many years, the PW-1 had lodged the FIR before police alleging the aforesaid facts.

5. After filing of the charge sheet, the trial court framed the charge under Section 370(4) of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 of the said Code.

6. During the trial of the case, the prosecution side examined 9 witnesses in order to prove the offence against the appellants. The appellants did not examine any witness. Ultimately, the trial court convicted the appellants under Section 370(4) of the Indian Penal Code.

7. I have gone through the prosecution evidence.

8. In her evidence, the PW-1 has narrated the facts as mentioned in the FIR. In her cross-examination she has stated that she fled from Delhi and came to Assam and lodged the FIR.

9. The second prosecution witness is Md. Jainuddin Ali (PW-2). He has stated in his evidence that the victim girl returned home after 10/12 years. He has stated that after her arrival, there was a village meeting and in that meeting the girl has disclosed that the appellant Makhan Ali had taken her to New Delhi.

10. The third prosecution witness is Md. Ajahar Islam (PW-3). He stated that he knew nothing about the occurrence.

11. The fourth prosecution witness is Md. Kasim Ali (PW-4). He had heard that about 12/13 years ago the appellants had taken one girl from his village and sold at Delhi. On her return after 12/13 years later, a village panchayat was held. This witness heard that the present two appellants were involved in trafficking the girl.

12. The fifth prosecution witness had heard that about 15 years ago the PW-1 was taken to Delhi and she was sold there.

13. The sixth prosecution witness is Md. Hussain Khan (PW-6). He is the uncle of PW-1. He knows the appellants. Hussain Khan has stated in his evidence that about 9/10 years ago, PW-1 was missing and after 9 years she returned home and narrated before the villagers that the appellant Badsha Ali had taken her to another State and sold her there.

14. In his cross-examination, Hussain Khan has stated that when the girl disappeared, no FIR was lodged by her family members.

15. The seventh prosecution witness (PW-7) knew nothing about the occurrence.

16. The eight prosecution witness (PW-8) is a police officer. His predecessor S.I. Sukumar Talukdar (not examined in this case as he expired) had investigated the case and also filed the charge sheet.

17. The ninth prosecution witness is another police officer. When PW-1 had lodged the FIR on 31.05.2018, he was working as an Officer-in-Charge of Tengeri Police Station